The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The sources are indeed important, because the more notable the parent concept (JD/MBA) is, the more of a case this list has. However, there are valid concerns about this list being indiscriminate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of JD/MBAs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is based on a meaningless intersection. There's nothing magical about having those particular two academic degrees, and it doesn't make any more sense to have this article than to have List of DDS/MFAs to cover the all-important dentist/scultor demographic. Since there is no encyclopedic value to this list, this nomination is essentially under WP:DIRECTORY. -- Y not? 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as each entry was cited (they aren't) or had an article on Wikipedia (still better cited), then I don't see a particular reason why the list shouldn't be here (and List of DDS/MFAs or other advanced degrees, for that matter.). The only problems I see is in editing, which is a topic for the article's talk page, not here. We have a List of humans, and this seems to be less indiscriminate than that. I would argue that there is encyclopedic value if I want to find JD's that have a similar educational experience as someone I am reading about, and the article does list by alma mater. Since only notable people (by definition) would be on the list, this is just another way to differentiate them, and just makes sense to me. Shouldn't even be that hard to police since most would have article on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable intersection, a fact which is further strengthened by the very large proportion of list members who are not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Roscelese says it well. It's a pretty common intersection too... It'd be a little bit like having a List of people who went to college... common doesn't = meaningful in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article serves no purpose and is of no value. as Y states, it is a meaningless intersection. What is it about the combination of a JD and MBA that deserves a page? There are many joint degree programs in this country and others, and the JD/MBA seems to be a popular one, but not notable in and of itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.207.126 (talk • contribs)
• Keep the list, delete the non-notable entries. A JD/MBA is a significantly different kind of educational track that has had a significant effect on the legal and business worlds, especially in the United States. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have an article about this significantly different educational track: JD/MBA. To the extent that track is a social phenomenon worth describing, we already have it described. But this list does not add any value to the encyclopedia. We don't need a directory of maybe-notable people who have no connection to each other except by virtue of having the same set of degrees. -- Y not? 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation Not to be difficult, but if the degrees are notable enough that we have an article called JD/MBA, would that indicate that a list of people who have achieved this might be encyclopedic and noteworthy? The existence of that particular article would seem to bolster the argument to keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, no, the article is in fact quite marginal. The concept of a JD/MBA as a separate phenomenon (i.e., more than just the combination of its constituent degrees) is a marginal one as well, and that fits in well with there being just one proper reference in that article - the WSJ piece, which is actually about the combo degree, rather than the rest of the refs, which are basically pages that note the existence of a JD/MBA. What I'm saying is this: while the JD/MBA may be notable to warrant a standalone article, we certainly don't need two. Note that there was a category earlier as well, which was deleted. -- Y not? 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see why it shouldn't be a category, which is much broader thing than a list, from my perspective. A list would be infinitely better for this anyway, as it would allow adding some context and other information instead of a raw listing, which this list does. It is simply grouping together pre-existing information in a way that makes it more usable, and as long as the criteria is narrowly defined (pretty hard to get more narrow than this), I fail to see the issue. As an aside, as an editing matter, what if the JD/MBA article had a section of 'notable people', wouldn't that be acceptable? And what if that list became too large? Wouldn't we end up with the article? Dennis Brown (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Meaningless intersection. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Supplemental comment to note that the JD/MBA has been the subject of substantial coverage. GScholar turns up a number of studies and articles, for example [1][2][3][4][5][6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which should be added as references to the JD/MBA article, the deletion of which has not been proposed. These cites are off-topic here. -- Y not? 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, several editors have opined that this is a "meaningless intersection". I respectfully disagree based on the existence of sources like these. What other objective basis exists to evaluate this contention?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a commonly-offered joint degree, and has some interest in law. That said, I think the inclusion criteria are strange. Vault 100 instead of AMLAW? Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current criteria are off; as mentioned above, I'd limit the list to persons with existing Wikipedia articles. Maybe it would be OK also to include a few persons who don't have an article just yet, but who are shown by cited source to be very clearly notable enough to deserve one, but I wouldn't carp if those names were excluded until their articles are written.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't seem to be a list that would be of much use and the criteria is rather arbitrary. Also, those listed are on Wikipedia not because of their JD/MBA. A comparable deletion discussion (to me, at least) can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts (rather arbitrary distinction, many redlinks), which ended up in deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.