- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Alpha Pi Phi
- Alpha Pi Phi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:AUD of WP:NORG - sources listed on talk page [1] and [2] are student newspapers of limited interest. No other coverage I have found. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Notifying @ Naraht: as he REFUNDed my PROD and wished to work on it. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually I was able to find [3], which I couldn't when I checked a month ago...hmm. Weird. Still don't think a few student newspaper and one local news sort of article is enough though. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Also I don't think there are more than a few hundred people there - so closer to
a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, world wide, is not "international in scale" simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live.
(from WP:NORG). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - my inclination was that it should be kept as a Greek letter organization with a reasonable number of chapters and members, given that it's quite new. However, I'm not voting yet specifically because there are currently no references outside of the organization's own website. I would hope that there are some external reliable sources that can be referred to in here. I will revisit in a few days to see how the article has been improved. PK T(alk) 16:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any automatic notability from being a greek letter organization (does that even mean much) or from having some chapters (i don't think each chapter has that many people..). Those sources I listed are all that I can find (and Naraht has found so far independently) - I don't think there are any more. Need at least some national media to reach WP:NORG's criteria. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 14:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I apologize that I haven't had the time to work on it, I agree with the previous posters that 90% of the article should be junked, but I also feel the found references *do* meet the NORG. Anyone want to take a crack at adding them in? Naraht ( talk) 18:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete due to the lack of reliable sources, as I noted previously. PK T(alk) 22:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources that show this passes WP:GNG not talk of WP:ORGDEPTH. Only primary refernce and Wikipedia article and its mirror show up. Also the overuse of "international" to assert notability is well another reason that shows it is not notable per caveat already covered at WP:NGO's caveat point. Ammarpad ( talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Extensive Rewrite
PKT, Ammarpad, Galobtter OK. I did some updating. I've included all four references that have been mentioned and trimmed the officer (local and national). Please take another look and if I'm still the only one who supports keeping it, I'll call for it to be closed with delete.
- There needs to be a signature in the edit for pings to go through (I didn't get the ping); so
PKT and
Ammarpad. I have seen the sources and don't think it's enough for
WP:CORPDEPTH. Including the sources shouldn't really matter, as the sources that
WP:NEXIST is what matters, but it can sometimes help.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 04:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Galobtter Apologies.
Naraht (
talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Nahrah's edit is a good effort, but actually on reading the content of the sources, they cannot be described as significant coverage in any sense. And thats why they end up in infobox, the bulk of the article body is referenced to their website (primary source) because no coverage from independent reliable source It still doesn't meet
WP:ORGIND. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm in agreement with Ammarpad. It's a good effort to add outside resources, but I don't think the sorority meets
WP:ORGIND either. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to move the article to the author's draft space so that it can be worked on.
PK
T(alk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well..notability cannot be fixed. Also I believe a lot of it is copyvio/close paraphrasing of the website, and so unsuitable to be worked on.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 13:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Galobtter says it all.
There are somethings which are just not fixable. Only deletion can fix them. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- presuming the sorority lasts long enough it will get fixed. And oddly if it does get deleted, we'll have the references that have been found so far here in the deletion discussion (which isn't that common)
- I'm curious as to what you think is copyvio. Things like the Pillars would have a very difficult time being rephrased, though the Symbols might be better in a list. Naraht ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Galobtter says it all.
There are somethings which are just not fixable. Only deletion can fix them. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well..notability cannot be fixed. Also I believe a lot of it is copyvio/close paraphrasing of the website, and so unsuitable to be worked on.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 13:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm in agreement with Ammarpad. It's a good effort to add outside resources, but I don't think the sorority meets
WP:ORGIND either. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to move the article to the author's draft space so that it can be worked on.
PK
T(alk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Nahrah's edit is a good effort, but actually on reading the content of the sources, they cannot be described as significant coverage in any sense. And thats why they end up in infobox, the bulk of the article body is referenced to their website (primary source) because no coverage from independent reliable source It still doesn't meet
WP:ORGIND. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Galobtter Apologies.
Naraht (
talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (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.
- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Alpha Pi Phi
- Alpha Pi Phi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:AUD of WP:NORG - sources listed on talk page [1] and [2] are student newspapers of limited interest. No other coverage I have found. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Notifying @ Naraht: as he REFUNDed my PROD and wished to work on it. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually I was able to find [3], which I couldn't when I checked a month ago...hmm. Weird. Still don't think a few student newspaper and one local news sort of article is enough though. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Also I don't think there are more than a few hundred people there - so closer to
a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, world wide, is not "international in scale" simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live.
(from WP:NORG). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - my inclination was that it should be kept as a Greek letter organization with a reasonable number of chapters and members, given that it's quite new. However, I'm not voting yet specifically because there are currently no references outside of the organization's own website. I would hope that there are some external reliable sources that can be referred to in here. I will revisit in a few days to see how the article has been improved. PK T(alk) 16:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any automatic notability from being a greek letter organization (does that even mean much) or from having some chapters (i don't think each chapter has that many people..). Those sources I listed are all that I can find (and Naraht has found so far independently) - I don't think there are any more. Need at least some national media to reach WP:NORG's criteria. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 14:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I apologize that I haven't had the time to work on it, I agree with the previous posters that 90% of the article should be junked, but I also feel the found references *do* meet the NORG. Anyone want to take a crack at adding them in? Naraht ( talk) 18:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete due to the lack of reliable sources, as I noted previously. PK T(alk) 22:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources that show this passes WP:GNG not talk of WP:ORGDEPTH. Only primary refernce and Wikipedia article and its mirror show up. Also the overuse of "international" to assert notability is well another reason that shows it is not notable per caveat already covered at WP:NGO's caveat point. Ammarpad ( talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Extensive Rewrite
PKT, Ammarpad, Galobtter OK. I did some updating. I've included all four references that have been mentioned and trimmed the officer (local and national). Please take another look and if I'm still the only one who supports keeping it, I'll call for it to be closed with delete.
- There needs to be a signature in the edit for pings to go through (I didn't get the ping); so
PKT and
Ammarpad. I have seen the sources and don't think it's enough for
WP:CORPDEPTH. Including the sources shouldn't really matter, as the sources that
WP:NEXIST is what matters, but it can sometimes help.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 04:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Galobtter Apologies.
Naraht (
talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Nahrah's edit is a good effort, but actually on reading the content of the sources, they cannot be described as significant coverage in any sense. And thats why they end up in infobox, the bulk of the article body is referenced to their website (primary source) because no coverage from independent reliable source It still doesn't meet
WP:ORGIND. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm in agreement with Ammarpad. It's a good effort to add outside resources, but I don't think the sorority meets
WP:ORGIND either. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to move the article to the author's draft space so that it can be worked on.
PK
T(alk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well..notability cannot be fixed. Also I believe a lot of it is copyvio/close paraphrasing of the website, and so unsuitable to be worked on.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 13:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Galobtter says it all.
There are somethings which are just not fixable. Only deletion can fix them. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- presuming the sorority lasts long enough it will get fixed. And oddly if it does get deleted, we'll have the references that have been found so far here in the deletion discussion (which isn't that common)
- I'm curious as to what you think is copyvio. Things like the Pillars would have a very difficult time being rephrased, though the Symbols might be better in a list. Naraht ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Galobtter says it all.
There are somethings which are just not fixable. Only deletion can fix them. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well..notability cannot be fixed. Also I believe a lot of it is copyvio/close paraphrasing of the website, and so unsuitable to be worked on.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 13:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm in agreement with Ammarpad. It's a good effort to add outside resources, but I don't think the sorority meets
WP:ORGIND either. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to move the article to the author's draft space so that it can be worked on.
PK
T(alk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Nahrah's edit is a good effort, but actually on reading the content of the sources, they cannot be described as significant coverage in any sense. And thats why they end up in infobox, the bulk of the article body is referenced to their website (primary source) because no coverage from independent reliable source It still doesn't meet
WP:ORGIND. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Galobtter Apologies.
Naraht (
talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (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.