Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Ivies


 * 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 redirect to Ivy League. Vanamonde (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Baby Ivies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An essay with only one reference. Not clear that this is really notable. Rathfelder (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Ivy League as that gives a definition of the term "Ivy" and has examples of Little Ivy and other similarly named colleges. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect - As I recall, the hysteria over "Baby Ivies" all started over this 2003 NYT article, which isn't currently included in the page. Nonetheless, that article doesn't even contain the term outside the headline, much less define it. I can find a few other scattered one-line references across the web, almost all about New York preschools. AngusWoof's suggestion to redirect makes sense to me, with the term added to the 3rd sentence in the section and a citation to the NYT piece. MarginalCost (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect - article seems really muddled about whether it is talking about a specific subset of private schools catering for babies and called "Baby Ivies", or private schools in general.Tacyarg (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete article makes lots of simplistic and unsupported assertions without sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources in the article that refer to the term; being a headline of a 2003 NYTimes article doesn't mean it's notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.