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. Non-admin closure. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Ivy League

[edit]

This article has no references that actually mention the subject, on top of it being non-notable neologism cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Canadian neologism, with little to no grounding in reality. Certainly no widespread use of this term in Canada. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a ((contradict-self)) tag for AFD comments? ITYMTS American neologism. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be such a tag, but I don't think I made a contradiction. There is no Canadian Ivy League, as the article states, and to create this term (by mixing "Canadian" and "Ivy league") would be a neologism about some feature of Canada. But speaking as a Canadian university student, I've certainly never heard this term before in my life, and I don't think Wikipedia is the appropriate place to promote new logisms. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to do when people appear not to be reading the article. It is NOT a "Canadian neologism". It is a word used by American students looking for universities that may be an alternative to the US Ivy League (and their guidance counselors, parents, etc.). It is also (in one form) a fully verifiable marketing campaign by Canadian universities that wish to attract these students. It has almost nothing to do with Canadian thinking about their universities. Your observations may well be true, but have hardly any relevance. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if it's irrelevant then don't worry about it. It's the job of the closing editor to give proper weight to votes and come to a proper decision. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprisingly few google hits for this term. I honestly would have expected more than 27. Mandsford (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's no widely-accepted definition of the schools on the list, but the term is widespread among the college-prep demographic (high school students, their families, and guidance counselors), with "Canadian Ivies" probably more commonly used -- although Canadian Ivy is actually a marketing term used by two (once three) particular schools. If that's not enough, we could always merge with Education in Canada#Post-secondary education or List of universities in Canada. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let me count the ways: 1) "Ivy League" is an athletic association, and this is not, and therefore there cannot be a "Canadian ivy league"; 2) "Ivy league" as "high quality" is one of those terms tossed about willy nilly, and it represents an non-neutral point of view to take a stand; 3) merely reporting what "other people" call a Canadian "ivy league" is chasing the horizon, because there is no significant effect of their calling this or that school a member of this supposed non-league, so there is no phenomenon to describe; 4) it is a POV war that must be eternal. See the horror of Southern Ivies for what you're invited. So, with no purpose, no reliable sources, no definite inclusion criteria, there is a clear, complete "delete." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1.) The term "Ivy League" is not generally associated with an athletic conference- ask any anyone from any location. High school students, in particular, refer to several Ivy leagues, as a mere comparison of universities. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform factually, while portraying certain commonly accepted elements. That being said, the article clearly states that there is no formal "Canadian Ivy League." The term is actually widely used in both the US and Canada. 2.) I agree that the term "Ivy League" is tossed about in an erroneous fashion, however the term is still used. The term "Canadian Ivy," has been used both in print, AND exists as a website: www.canadianivy.ca 3.) Other "Ivy Leagues" have been created on wikipedia as well, on LESSER grounds. Why is this term not entitled to its own article? 4.) No significant effect? That's poor logic: the name is the effect of the school, not vice-versa. Additionally, even if the term had an effect, it would only raise awareness of the top Canadian Universities. No matter how you see it, "chasing the horizon" makes no sense and has no impact. --6mat1 | Talk 13:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough sourcing here to make this "fly", and there's absolutely no reason why the neologism couldn't, or won't, stick. We should try to make judgments that are fair. This seems like a POV war. -Kmaguir1 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When it can be shown to have stuck, we should have an article on it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone check the references? I can read one (and it loosely applies), but the rest to subscriptions/books to which I have no access. I do not believe they are as strong a support as they seem. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Use the power of the free registration, Luke, and you too will see that these are articles which are substantially about the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very skeptical. I'm going to make a personal test. I don't know yet how it will turn out. I'm going to search in Google Books for exact phrase "Canadian Ivy League" and related terms. If there are more than 500 relevant hits I'll recommend "keep," if less than 100 I'll recommend "delete," otherwise I won't recommend either way. Here goes. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) There are only 5 hits on "Canadian Ivy League." There are only 21 on "Canadian Ivy" of which only 5 or 6 are about schools and the rest are about a variety of ivy. There are only 1750 hits on "Ivy League" itself so I set the bar way too high, but 5 hits is not enough. There are about 80 relevant hits on "Public Ivy" and about 50 on "Little Ivy League."[reply]

Comment You're letting WP:GHITS trump actual sources? Besides, you are using an inappropriate metric for Google Books. There are many, many notable terms which don't appear more than a single-digit number of times in Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 10:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, evidence of real use is very weak. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's useful -- and being used. As the article evolves it will become more useful, but even as it is there hardly seems much justification in excising it. Roregan (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there a WP:USEFUL policy I don't know about? IMHO it fails WP:NOTABILITY, and thats what is being debated here. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects." Would you care to explain how the current set of sources does not demonstrate notability? --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not policy. It's a personal essay. The actual relevant policy is notability, and there is a general notability guideline there. JJL (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was policy. It is an essay that interprets policy, and does not, in my view, state any new policy. WP:N is still satisified, if you need that stated explicitly in order to engage the argument. --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers, Cornellrocky, I'm sorry I didn't phrase my vote in the proper format for you. I was trying to offer my opinion as to why the article, in my opinion, ought to be kept. I don't have the codes for the criteria memorized. I learned two today though: WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DONTBITE. Have you heard of that second one? Roregan (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The cited sources (barely) establish the notability of this incredibly stupid term. --ElKevbo (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2008 (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.