Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doxbridge

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 of the debate was merge -- Jonel | Speak 03:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doxbridge

This seems to be a made up term, at the least it is a neologism and as such is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The only references I have been able to find are in fact adverts for a sporting event. We cant be listing every sports event in here without the encyclopedia becomeing discredited as trivial 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

• delete. humblefool® 2 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. This term does appear to be used by many Durham students, and is increasingly used by Oxbridge sports teams. It would seem hard to expand into an encylopaedia article without being somewhat controversial though -- more appropriate as a dictionary entry perhaps? -- Sjb90 2 July 2005 13:32 (UTC) (relatively new user).
• A cautious keep. Not sure what the original proposer means by "a made up term"; presumably it was made up by someone at some point, like most words; but Google hits show that it was clearly not made up by a Wikipedian. Equally, guidelines only prohibit neologisms which do not have "realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits", which is not really the case here (all words start out as neologisms; that doesn't make them intrinsically non-notable). Equally, far from all the google hits for 'Doxbridge' are about a particular sporting event; though it is true that the most prominent use of the term is for the Doxbridge sports tours (so called simply because Oxford, Cambridge and Durham are the universities that take part). It's true, however, that it's not a particularly common term (~300 Google hits), and it might merit deletion on that basis; but I don't think that the reasons given in the proposition are actually true. Transwiki to Wiktionary is a thought, but the article already contains some non-dictionary content; I think there might be potential for an article on the extent to which Durham is connected to, and differs from, Oxbridge. TSP 3 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• delete. Richard 04 July 2005 12:14 - vote from unsigned-in User:81.132.58.245
  • User's 1st edit
• delete Has the term ever been used other than by druham fanboys? Seems like an attempt to create bogus prestige. Unbehagen 4 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
  • User's 2nd edit

  Uh, well, the top Google hit for it is from Cambridge, and then there's an Oxford hit before the first Durham one appears at hit 10.... As I say, I don't feel very strongly about keeping this term, but there's no need to use it to insult a whole university. TSP 4 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

  I agree with TSP: I'm edgy about it developing into a longer encyclopaedia article, but Google shows the term being used 60 times in the ox.ac.uk domain, 57 in cam.ac.uk, and just 33 in dur.ac.uk (though this disguises the fact student pages may commonly be hosted in alternative domains in one or more of these universities). This isn't just a term used at Durham. Sjb90 8 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

• As with TSP; it's a neologism, yes, but one which does have some real-world existence. We do, however, have a page for Oxbridge - a merge and redirect to there would seem sensible, given the term is an extension of the Oxbridge portmanteau; it'd complement that page reasonably well. Shimgray 5 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect with Oxbridge, as suggested. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
• delete. I'm a Cambridge student and I've never heard of the term. It appears to be an attempt, made in poor taste, to boost the status of Durham by linking it to Oxford and Cambridge. Not fit for wikipedia. Sarah 08 July 2005 15:06
  • Public IP address, unsure of specific contributor's contributions

  Please read the debate above; I think this point has been answered. (Not to disagree with your vote, necessarily, but I think you are mistaken as to the origin and status of the term.) TSP 23:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC) PS. As your vote was made anonymously through the Cambridge web proxy, it is unlikely that it will be counted; if you are are a regular Wikipedian with an account and want your vote to be counted on this issue, you will need to log in and re-make your vote from your account.

• Merge with Oxbridge. David | Talk 8 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
• delete gangeska july 9, 2005
  • User's 9th edit
• Delete. Neologism. --Neigel von Teighen 9 July 2005 00:45 (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.