Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Ivy League

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 delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Ivy League[edit]

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

A neologism coined in a single news article from the 1960s that has not gained acceptance in the mainstram. See neologism policy. GrapedApe (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, nothing notable here. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perusing Google News and Google Books convinces me that there appears to be sufficient RS usage of the term to support this article. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google News (0 results), Google News archives (7 results) and Google Books (30 results) for the term "Catholic Ivy League" seems to indicate that the majority of returned results is due to the circumstance of the text using the identical sequence of words, eg, "Catholic, Ivy League graduates" as in "Catholics that are graduates of the Ivy League". It does not seem to be a commonly used term defining an understood grouping of schools in the majority of the the search results. The use of the term seems well insufficient for any standards of notability. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 16:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crazypaco. Most of the results are false hits, ie. coincidental juxtaposition of these common words; additionally, others use the term in the same way that the original Time article did but not in reference to the same schools, making it another coincidence of coining rather than a topic. We won't have an article based on a single magazine story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 25 December 2012 (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.