Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Ivy


 * 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 keep. Star  Mississippi  14:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Public Ivy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page is a compilation of lists from two books, one published in 1985 and the other in 2001. The books themselves do not appear to be especially notable, and at this point are extremely outdated. Additionally, a quick Google search for the term "public ivy" reveals that it is not in common use by reliable sources. Internetronic (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - A quick google search shows that the term is still regularly used by various college admissions consulting firms, and even has a page on the Fulbright Commission’s website (link). The term has even been used by news outlets such as the New York Times (link). Although the term might not be hugely popular, it still meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (see WP:NOTABILITY) and the article should be kept. If you have an issue with the article, I’d recommend improving it rather than deleting it. This article has been around since 2005, I see no reason to delete it now. - Willsteve2000 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see any evidence in your reply that WP:NOTABILITY is in fact satisfied. An obscure page on Fulbright's website and an offhand reference in a single NYT article are certainly not sufficient to fulfill the requirement. The indisputable fact is that the article is simply a copy-pasted list from two unofficial commercial guides written over twenty years ago. The article is un-improvable considering the criterion for what is and is not a public ivy seems to be "whether it was published in one of these two arbitrary guides".
 * Consider creating a page for the guides themselves and include the schools there, providing you can provide sufficient secondary sources establishing the reliability of said guides. Internetronic (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If your qualm over the article meeting WP:NOTABILITY guidelines is regarding the use of the term "public ivy" in secondary sources, then you can find the term being used in more sources than just those two. For example, the term has been used by The Atlantic (link), the Washington Post (link and link), Newsweek (link), NPR (link), the Economist (link), and many others. There are even plenty of scholarly sources that discuss the Public Ivies too (link); the information from some of them could even be added to this article to improve it and expand it beyond the "copy-pasted list from two unofficial commercial guides". Furthermore, I fail to see how creating two separate articles for the two guides which discuss the same topic would be an improvement on the singular article that currently exists. - Willsteve2000 (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned this in another reply but I will do so here as well. The Atlantic article is an example of citogenesis, its source being the exact Wikipedia page in question. The Newsweek article is from 1991. (Not that old articles are never relevant, but I'm simply pointing out that this is an extremely obvious example of cherrypicking). The Economist article includes one passing reference, which is not sufficient to establish notability. The (very brief) Planet Money article mentions "the eight public ivies" in passing, but does not explain what criteria it is using. (Its source, the Department of Education, does not use the term.) This leaves two cherrypicked Washington Post articles, one of which is an opinion piece. I'm sorry, but I do not think that this can justify a Wikipedia page that is simply a regurgitation of two commercial guides, effectively serving as a de facto advertisement for the guides themselves and the listed schools. Internetronic (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Willsteve2000 which demonstrate that the term is used in reliable secondary sources, many of which could easily be incorporated into the article for an update. "Quick Google search" = poor WP:BEFORE, given the sources found. Improve and update, rather than waste everyone's time at AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would recommend actually reading the sources Willsteve2000 copy-pasted from WP refs before rushing to their defense. Internetronic (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Term obviously still in wide usage. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wide usage" seems like a bit of an overstatement if you're referring to Willsteve2000's references. The Atlantic article directly cites the Wikipedia page (see WP:CIRCULAR), the Newsweek piece is from 1991, and the Economist piece includes exactly one passing reference. Internetronic (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - the term stemming from the books is a seminal piece that reframed how the general public views public colleges, in that they can offer high quality education on par with private schools, usually with larger endowments and prestige. Public Ivy is still used by high school college counselors, and the fact that the books were written as far back as 1985, along with 2001, and are still being used and sold around the world makes the argument even stronger for meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Per the (Wikipedia Intro to Deletion Process, "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." All of the other articles I've seen proposed for deletion were extremely poorly written, plagiarized completely, or things/people I've never heard of or so obscure and niche with so few page views that no one would notice they were gone. According to the (Wikipedia Page Views Tool, the page has gotten nearly 2.6 million views since July 2015 and an average of almost 30,000 page views a month. These stats don't necessitate keeping the article on their own, but the article can be improved without being deleted; regarding the content, I think improving to the article would be better than deleting it or splitting it up into different pages. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been unable find evidence that these books are in fact "seminal pieces". The vast, vast majority of mentions of "public ivies" are from unreliable sources such as college prep programs and academic consulting firms.
 * The article takes these two unnoteworthy commercial guides at face value to determine that "public ivy" is a legitimate category of higher education institutions. I disagree. Wikipedia should not be used for what is effectively an advertisement. Internetronic (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think many of these college rankings are marketing and advertisements, U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking has flawed metrics yet still sells magazines and makes money from the ad revenue from their site; their hospital rankings are also flawed but effective marketing. The New York Times on September 15, 2022 published an article criticizing these college rankings and described the University of Michigan as a "public Ivy." I referred to the books as seminal for coining or popularizing the term "Public Ivy", since now most people know the phrase even if they don't know it came from a book. However, I get your point that a lot of the Google results pull up college prep programs and academic consulting firms. This article doesn't advertise those firms though, just talks about the rankings from the books. Wikipedia has a lot of articles for other books and colloquial terms, yet those usually aren't seen as advertisements. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep notable term that has been used in many sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2022 (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.