Quick A: No

Recently on SO:

Does access control matter for deleted constructors?

Since it's overload resolution that makes the program ill-formed in this case, and not access specifiers (which are checked later), there is no difference in outcome. The compiler will always complain that a deleted function was picked.

But since the idiom before C++11 was "declare but not define a private copy c'tor to disable copying", I would consider it going along with the same idiom, and therefore favorable. You are using the "old slang" with some new language to describe the same thing, except better.