Deletion of Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination)

Comment: The term does not formally exist, and the second paragraph alludes to this fact - "The label is derived from general rhetoric, and as such there is no strict list of the schools included in the group". Allowing the use of an informally ill-defined phrase as the basis of a Wikipedia article sets a dangerous precedent for |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:ORIGINAL)

Comment: does not appear to be a specific set of schools but rather a continuously spontaneously recreated  that writers use for obvious reasons. Is there a good rd and merge target
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: While it's a ridiculous term, it's clearly in widespread usage as one can see with a quick look through some of the sources and many others not cited.  The article as it currently exists may not be very good but deletion is not the answer.  I caution others against |letting their dislike of the term color their opinion of the article about the term
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)