This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Deleted by User:Neutrality. Nohat 22:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

neologism, non-notable, original research Nohat 03:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I vote AGAINST deletion. This is absurd. Clearly Noaht is a graduate of one of these "fake ivies" and is insulted by the article. My reserach shows that he is a graduate/ student at Cornell. Perhaps someone less partial should be evaluating the content of the article. I make a motion to remove nohat's comments. He should grow up. Cancan101 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see anything wrong with this article. What is wrong with a neologism? Weren't all established conventions at one time new? Non-notable is very generic. Please explain what it means and why it should count against this article. No evidence of original research. Seeing the obvious is not research. Until NoHat explains further, I vote AGAINST deletion.(unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115)

  Please see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Rationale_shorthands, not to mention Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Nohat 04:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  nohat, please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Do you consider yourself neutral?

  Neutrality has nothing to do with people, but with content. As it stands, this article is irredeemably POV. Whether or not I am neutral is irrelevant. The whole point of Votes for deletion is for everyone in the community who cares to voice their opinion about whether the article should be deleted. Only if there is consensus to delete will the article be deleted. I merely nominated the article for deletion. Anyone is welcome to nominate articles for deletion, provided they do so within the policies and guideless for the deletion process. Nohat 04:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Google turns up nothing for this term and the article, especially the ending, is rather POV. Danaman5
• Keep Support assertions, please. (unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115 [1]) (deleted by 69.37.205.115 [2])

  Struck because: duplicate vote. Nohat 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I vote AGAINST deletion. I have heard this term mentioned in the Economist. (unsigned edit by Cancan101 [3])

  Struck because: duplicate vote. Nohat 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I propose a solution to this problem. We can correct the biased POV, by having both sides write parts of the article. Since the article currently is against "fake ivies," I suggest having NoHat, a representative of Cornell, one of these so called "Fake ivies" write his POV. Cancan101 04:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Please make proposals for improving the article on the article's talk page. Nohat 04:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I am so far undecided about this whole issue. I think there is no such thing a fake ivy. As Sidney Pollack points in A Civil Action after asking John Travolta what kind of Harvard man he is and learning that John went to Cornell, “Cornell is a damn good school…damn good” (unsigned edit by Cancan101 [4])

  Struck because: duplicate vote. Nohat 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: not only does this guy write blatant POV crap, he can't even be bothered to create sockpuppets. He just votes again and again with his own name, and (I suspect) his own IP address. --Xcali 04:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Response to above comment: I value your criticism but please be civil and use proper English (e.g. "crap"). (unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115[5])
  • The last time I checked, crap was a perfectly cromulent word. --Xcali 04:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I like your style. Finally progressing in the "art" of sarcasm.(unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115)
• Addendum: And please, for your own sake as well as mine, don't resort to Ad Hominem attacks.(unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115)
• FYI, those aren't duplicate votes, those are different people on different computers (unsigned edit by Cancan101 [6])
• DELETE. This is hilarious. Why hasn't the article been deleted already? Obviously, Cancan101 has some serious issues, the article is riddled with POV, and there is nothing to substantiate it. I'd venture to speculate that Cancan101 has a bone to pick with these schools for some reason.--AaronS 05:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If consensus is to delete, note that there are also articles Fake ivy and Fake Ivy League. I've turned both of these into redirects to the page that we are now debating. --Xcali 05:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologisms. The use of this term, and what Ivies technically fit into its clearly negative umbrella, make it nearly impossible to meet NPOV standards. Not to mention that I've never heard of it before, and Google's hits for "fake ivy" are all unrelated (of the first 20, 1 is a user on a message board using it in this way, 1 is political snark about George W. Bush, and the other 18 are decorating things...) ESkog 05:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, unverifiable. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, original research, irreparable POV. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete based on the fact that this guy can't even make sock puppets. If he's not going to put that much effort into defending his article, obviously it's not worthy of inclusion. --FCYTravis 07:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sockpuppet and personal attack limits have both been exceeded. RickK 19:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: neologism, impossible NPOV. AJD 23:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• cancan101 did NOT write the article. Pull his IP address and you will see it isn't the same as the unsigned user who is also posting. I just happen to know the person who wrote it.Cancan101 21:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not here to push arguments or create notability, it is here to reflect it, and this neologism is not widely used at all. Average Earthman 21:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, and a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 22:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism (+ sockpuppetry). --Etacar11 00:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.