Talk:Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business

Ranking
In 2006, the Lubar School of Business was ranked 85th in North America and 96th world-wide in terms of research productivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.90.140 (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Given Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines which states :

If an institution's faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article (e.g. Jesus College, Oxford, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania). In general these organizations are not notable (see WP:ORG) and should not be split off from the main institution article in the absence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. If some faculties or academic colleges have significance and others do not, it may be the case that the institution's academic programs as a whole are notable. In this case it may be acceptable to create a separate academics article (see Michigan State University academics, Colleges of the University of Oxford)

I am not sure that this constituent academic college/school is especially notable or significant and have tagged it as such and feel it should be merged. Codf1977 (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the show case Michigan State University academics, Colleges of the University of Oxford in the guideline you provided. These two subarticles have their own Sub-sub articles for all their individual colleges and schools. There is nothing wrong for creating articles for these colleges and schools. As they are notable either individual or as a whole as a major research university in the US and special role in the education in Wiscosin. Your list article is not helpful to the readers, who are lost among a long list of schools when searching for the one they are interested. At last, guidelines are guidance or suggestions, not law. Revws (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should be kept. The standard for notability you provided is not clear cut. Besides, significant sources have been provided in the article to show its notability. DJldhu (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)