- 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 redirect to University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College#Student organizations as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
UP Halcyon
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- UP Halcyon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization, no refs from Google News, Google, Books and News Archives. WP:PROD removed by User:Jax MN while calling me a deletionist while being at it.
IMO I don't think Filipinos such as myself and our organizations should be patronized and must be treated equally in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. (See Talk:UP Halcyon) Lenticel ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete zero sources found, no sources used in the article. Little to nothing by which to judge it. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per above, zero sources. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 02:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN ( talk) 16:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The article is tagged to request citations. I agree these are lacking. It is otherwise well-written, and non-promotional. I see no problem in letting it continue to gather improvements as it is a work in progress. We have the space. With several hundred graduates and a 17 year history at the school, professional pages showing membership by its graduates, an updated and busy Facebook page, the organization appears valid. To support the need for citations I've written to the group, asking pointedly for these, and have updated the official website link on the article. To suddenly push an AfD here is arbitrary, and inconsistent with the collaborative process of building this resource.
Jax MN (
talk)
15:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just because an organization exists does not mean it is notable. And notability is what WP:AFD is about. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability_fallacies to understand what arguments establish notability and which do not. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
- Comment The infobox says they have 200 members. How much coverage would they get? Dream Focus 16:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Just because an organization has a facebook page doesn't mean it is notable. The concerns about sourcing outweigh however many graduates this college has had or how long it has existed. See
WP:ITSOLD and
WP:BIG.
2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 (
talk)
18:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you, Anon, for commenting. I don't know the reason for your anonymity, but assume good faith. --As I hope you do for me. I am quite aware of notability guidelines. I have two concerns over Lenticel's PROD, then AfD. First, that this is an abrupt effort against an article that has slow traffic, but is properly formed and non-promotional. I prefer we continue to allow it to gather improvements, versus killing it. But I completely agree it needs citations. My second concern is over many of the Fraternity and Sorority articles coming out of the Philippines, which, like UP Halcyon lack sources. We (experienced F&S volunteers) know that Philippine schools have a robust fraternity and sorority culture. But these organizations are not promoted by school portals nor do they get much press -- in English, at least. The nation has almost 200 languages and dialects, thirteen of which have a million or more speakers. Do publications in any of these languages offer citations? When we search for citations in JSTOR it appears we are looking at English sources (correct me if I am wrong.) To ignore the other languages would be unfair, and dismissive of those Philippine cultural/linguistic groups. (Thus Lenticel, I do not intend to be patronizing in any way. Sorry if that was how you read this.) With all this in mind, it is why I asked for help from the Rescue Squadron team. I have no experience with Cebuano, Tagalog, etc. Can we simply fix this article, instead of killing it? Jax MN ( talk) 19:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Zero sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to
University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College#Student organizations. Fails
WP:NORG per nom. The org can be covered in the target article.
SBKSPP (
talk)
03:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable solution. Rublamb ( talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment several have voted, perhaps prematurely. I just updated the article with two references from the university itself, proving validity and notability. Again, I urge collaboration, and positive effort to improve these articles. As admins, it sure is easy to kill things, but I believe we serve our readers by creating, and improving. I can see no ill-intent in the creation of this article, it just needed some work. Jax MN ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The added references are neither independent nor show notability. The first reference is literary awarded for following campus rules. As for the second reference, an award by your own institution does not show independence nor notability as its recognition is limited on just one campus. An acceptable notable student org award in the country would be the Philippine Quill Award. -- Lenticel ( talk) 03:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I am unable to locate any references whatsoever that meet
WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing
++
15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment See the most recent version of the article. The two references I added are indeed independent, (i.e.: not controlled by the organization), and show that, to the school and its community, the organization is notable. The school recognized this particular group out of all other student groups with their inaugural award as a valued contributor. The organization did not control that vote.
- Fellow editors, I don't know what is motivating this rush to kill this article rather than to improve it. This is a small organization, but valid, notable to their community, and the article isn't just thin promotion like so many, many others. Killing it is an example of Deletionism, a harmful tendency within Wikipedia. Perhaps
Lenticel, normally a reasonable contributor, has decided to fight this battle because he/she took offense at me for questioning the PROD. The other votes seem to me to be casual "me too" votes, without considering improvement or attempting to help. I think that a fair-minded editor would pause, and adjust their vote to !Keep.
Jax MN (
talk)
16:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- My !vote was made *after* you added the (only) two refs to the article. It was also made *after* you'd already pointed out the same fact to an earlier !vote. Why would you comment, as you did, when you could easily have checked the timestamps for my !vote. Your other comments have really nothing to do with AfD matters and seem a but pointy. HighKing ++ 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fellow editors, I don't know what is motivating this rush to kill this article rather than to improve it. This is a small organization, but valid, notable to their community, and the article isn't just thin promotion like so many, many others. Killing it is an example of Deletionism, a harmful tendency within Wikipedia. Perhaps
Lenticel, normally a reasonable contributor, has decided to fight this battle because he/she took offense at me for questioning the PROD. The other votes seem to me to be casual "me too" votes, without considering improvement or attempting to help. I think that a fair-minded editor would pause, and adjust their vote to !Keep.
Jax MN (
talk)
16:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: the two sources are too closely-linked to the mother organization of the subject, coming from UP Diliman itself. That runs afoul to
WP:INDEPENDENT.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.)
14:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you, JWilz12345. You raise an important point, also alluded to by Dream Focus. The group operates without controversy, and without seeking publicity. They are not the subject of a scandal... Hence, they face a situation as do many of the "good" fraternities and sororities, in that they lack press coverage. Yet we've proven they are valid: they exist, and that they are notable to the college and its community: their awards. You've applied an overly broad interpretation of "Independent" here. The UP Halcyon group does not control what is on the College's website, nor vice-versa. The College was fully independent in its recognition of them.
- This is a haphazard PROD, by a skilled admin who nevertheless does not have involvement with this category of organization articles. Rather than fix the page, he/she merely opted to kill it. I objected, and found two good sources. Cordially, I note that Wikipedia's rules regarding Deletion state that participants should have a reasonable level of [subject] competence, and elaborates on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." This is why I refrain from PRODing or voting on nominations regarding Australian Rules Football, or Rap Music. They're not in my sphere of competence. --What Lenticel may not know is that there are potentially 100,000 or 200,000 local fraternities that may desire a WP article. Our Project group itself only supports a few of these who meet a bar of inclusion (tenure over 10 years, usually a physical location, external references, etc.). The Halcyon group meets our bar of inclusion, which is very stringent, documented, and consistent.
- I urge review of votes here, now that the page is improved with these references and clarifications.
Jax MN (
talk)
17:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- You need to take a close look at our guidelines and especially WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability. Since this is the third time you've commented after someone's !vote to mention that fact you've added references, you should also be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. You are not an inexperienced editors and so you should be aware we have various policies and guidelines. Since this is an organization, WP:NORG guidelines apply. There are two sections in particular - WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND which essentially mean that we require multiple references that provide in-depth and significant coverage on the topic (not students or members or events, but the actual organization) which contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Your first reference from University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College is a mention in a list. This is trivial coverage, fails CORPDEPTH. In addition, the university is affiliated with the organisation and this reference would also fail ORGIND. Your second reference from University of the Philippines Open University marks the 48th anniversity of UP Visayas Tacoblan College. This article has no attributed journalist/author so it could be argued it fails WP:RS as we don't know its origin. Leaving that aside, the topic organization has a mention-in-passing (one sentence) and has no in-depth information *about* the organization, fails CORPDEPTH. Bottom line, despite your urging and your protestations, you appear to misunderstand the criteria for notability and you are obviously closely connected with the org. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion or advertising or to be manipulated for "awareness", nor is it a Yellow Pages or some sort of directory. HighKing ++ 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the subject is marginally notable and the article is thin on sources, but what tips me in favor of keeping is that this group won an award from the university. That does make the group notable within student organizations in the Philippines. Also, the article is well written for a starter. Finally, I believe diversity is important within the Wikipedia community. Sometimes that means understanding the challenges in finding what we consider traditional sources and/or English language sources. Would you even know whether or not a Philippine source was major or minor if there were more sources? The bottom line is that the university is a legitimate and independent source. It is credible and important in context of this topic. Keep the article--encourage the authors improve it and bring more topics to Wikpedia.
Rublamb (
talk)
19:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- We need to see an argument based on our policies/guidelines, not opinion. The award (from the university they're affiliated with) is insignificant. The rest of your argument (award=notable, well written article, diversity is important, challenges for non-English sourcing, bottom line plea, move along nothing to see) is opinion and not based on guidelines, etc.
HighKing
++
10:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting from WP:JUSTAPOLICY "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." That is what I did--explain my reasoning. Sorry if my explanation did not match your opinion. So let me cite with guidelines to back my thoughts. WP:SURMOUNTABLE I agree that this article needs more sources to meet the criteria for notability. However, this problem is surmountable because with more time for its editors to explore non-English sources, Philippine source, and non-digital sources, this article can be improved. I am not using the "sources must exist somewhere" defense, but rather my professional understanding of content seeking in countries like the Philippines, along with the credibility of the existing sources. WP:ITSLOCAL This is my primary defense, what you refer to as diversity. Quoting from ITSLOCAL, "Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the I've never heard of it argument. Many subjects are esoteric, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. ...The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Wikipedia is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Wikipedia can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own." WP:IGNORINGATD Ultimately, I recommended retaining this article at this time because GNORINGATD says "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history." At a minimum, @ SBKSPP is correct that we should be recommending whether to keep or redirect/merge this content, rather than to simply delete. Rublamb ( talk) 14:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- We need to see an argument based on our policies/guidelines, not opinion. The award (from the university they're affiliated with) is insignificant. The rest of your argument (award=notable, well written article, diversity is important, challenges for non-English sourcing, bottom line plea, move along nothing to see) is opinion and not based on guidelines, etc.
HighKing
++
10:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Rublamb, this is a great clarification. You've quoted extensively from an essay
WP:ATA rather than our guidelines and to paraphrase, you're saying that it is likely that more sources exist and you also say that you rely primarily on ITSLOCAL. That section also says subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour do require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH which applies here since this is an organization. Bottom line: we need to see sources or we need to at *least* have some confidence that sources are likely to exist. To date, the only sources originate from other organizations that are affiliated with the topic org. We have seen no indications that any other sources exist, or likely to exist.
HighKing
++
15:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just did a quick Google search and came up with several new sources which I added, including the only LGBTQ magazine in the Philippines, a division of the Philippine government, and a nationwide news outlet founded by by 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa. Also, more sources from the university itself. I think this proves my point that there is more out there to be found as I have yet to search newspapers. Rublamb ( talk) 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's great you've added more sources, thank you. I think there's a misunderstanding in terms of what is required in order to establish notability though. I've summarised NCORP below.
- This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply.
- We require references that discuss the *organization* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
- "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the organization - quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
- Looking at the new references (you added 6).
- This from Philippine News Agency doesn't even mention the topic org, fails to establish notability, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from the University website also doesn't even mention the topic org, fails to establish notability, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from the LGBTQ magazine simply mentions the topic org by name, a mere mention-in-passing. It is not significant. Fails CORPDEPTH
- This from Rappler is a list of organizations running various initiatives to provide relief from the aftermath of Typhoon Odette in December 2021. The list contains over 100 organizations of which the topic org is one. It is not significant, contains no in-depth information about the topic org (fails CORPDEPTH) and merely repeats information provided by the topic org (fails ORGIND).
- This from the Dept of the Environment and Natural Resources is a mere mention-in-passing, is not significant, provides no detailed information about the topic org. Fails CORPDEPTH
- Finally, this from the University of the Philippines website states that the "author" is the University Media and Public Relations Office. The publishing org is affiliated with the topic org. It does not provide any in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH
- None of those references come close to meeting NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. This isn't about proving that the topic organization exists. Mere mentions or inclusions in lists are classified as trivial coverage. Material produced and repeated in publications have no intellectual independence and fails ORGIND.
HighKing
++
17:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood. Others were posting to delete UP Halcyon because there were no sources and nothing in Google. I proved both points to be incorrect, lending credence to my belief that there is a reasonable expectation that more references exist in sources from the Philippines. While I did not find an extensive article in my very quick scan of Google, the sources I found do qualify as independent and reliable. These citations back much of the previously unsourced content of the article, and also document the work undertaken by the organization which collectively builds a case for notability. For example, two of the sources I added prove that this group has partnered with the local city and a branch of the Philippine government on projects. Yes, I cited two articles that are not about the group, but they are about the award the group won (as in, is the award notable) and the group's founder (as in, is this group associated with anyone of importance and why does this name matter). One of my sources, that you say is just a list, includes a short paragraph about the Halcyon project and a graphic. I will repeat what @ Jax MN wrote previously: a university and its student organizations are independent of each other. I used to work in a department of information and development for a small state university--student orgs, the alumni association, the university, the sports office, and even the library are not the same, have totally different PR staff, have their own social media, and rarely speak to each other. Saying that the university is not an independent source in this case would be like saying we cannot use the NCAA as a source on Kansas Jayhawks basketball because the KU is a member of the NCAA. Or that NASCAR cannot be used as a source on Kyle Busch because he participates in NASCAR races. Just like the Jayhawks and Busch cannot control what the larger organizations publish, UP Halcyon cannot control what the university PR office writes. As I have said several times, I agree that more sources are needed to prove notability--I think everyone posting here agrees on this point. I am just suggesting that we take a minute and consider that this group with more than 5K Facebook followers and the potential for extensive coverage fits the criteria to keep under development. At a minimum, its content should be merged rather than deleted. Rublamb ( talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Rublamb, this is a great clarification. You've quoted extensively from an essay
WP:ATA rather than our guidelines and to paraphrase, you're saying that it is likely that more sources exist and you also say that you rely primarily on ITSLOCAL. That section also says subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour do require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH which applies here since this is an organization. Bottom line: we need to see sources or we need to at *least* have some confidence that sources are likely to exist. To date, the only sources originate from other organizations that are affiliated with the topic org. We have seen no indications that any other sources exist, or likely to exist.
HighKing
++
15:13, 11 August 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.
- 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 redirect to University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College#Student organizations as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
UP Halcyon
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- UP Halcyon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization, no refs from Google News, Google, Books and News Archives. WP:PROD removed by User:Jax MN while calling me a deletionist while being at it.
IMO I don't think Filipinos such as myself and our organizations should be patronized and must be treated equally in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. (See Talk:UP Halcyon) Lenticel ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete zero sources found, no sources used in the article. Little to nothing by which to judge it. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per above, zero sources. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 02:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN ( talk) 16:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The article is tagged to request citations. I agree these are lacking. It is otherwise well-written, and non-promotional. I see no problem in letting it continue to gather improvements as it is a work in progress. We have the space. With several hundred graduates and a 17 year history at the school, professional pages showing membership by its graduates, an updated and busy Facebook page, the organization appears valid. To support the need for citations I've written to the group, asking pointedly for these, and have updated the official website link on the article. To suddenly push an AfD here is arbitrary, and inconsistent with the collaborative process of building this resource.
Jax MN (
talk)
15:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just because an organization exists does not mean it is notable. And notability is what WP:AFD is about. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability_fallacies to understand what arguments establish notability and which do not. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
- Comment The infobox says they have 200 members. How much coverage would they get? Dream Focus 16:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Just because an organization has a facebook page doesn't mean it is notable. The concerns about sourcing outweigh however many graduates this college has had or how long it has existed. See
WP:ITSOLD and
WP:BIG.
2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 (
talk)
18:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you, Anon, for commenting. I don't know the reason for your anonymity, but assume good faith. --As I hope you do for me. I am quite aware of notability guidelines. I have two concerns over Lenticel's PROD, then AfD. First, that this is an abrupt effort against an article that has slow traffic, but is properly formed and non-promotional. I prefer we continue to allow it to gather improvements, versus killing it. But I completely agree it needs citations. My second concern is over many of the Fraternity and Sorority articles coming out of the Philippines, which, like UP Halcyon lack sources. We (experienced F&S volunteers) know that Philippine schools have a robust fraternity and sorority culture. But these organizations are not promoted by school portals nor do they get much press -- in English, at least. The nation has almost 200 languages and dialects, thirteen of which have a million or more speakers. Do publications in any of these languages offer citations? When we search for citations in JSTOR it appears we are looking at English sources (correct me if I am wrong.) To ignore the other languages would be unfair, and dismissive of those Philippine cultural/linguistic groups. (Thus Lenticel, I do not intend to be patronizing in any way. Sorry if that was how you read this.) With all this in mind, it is why I asked for help from the Rescue Squadron team. I have no experience with Cebuano, Tagalog, etc. Can we simply fix this article, instead of killing it? Jax MN ( talk) 19:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Zero sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to
University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College#Student organizations. Fails
WP:NORG per nom. The org can be covered in the target article.
SBKSPP (
talk)
03:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable solution. Rublamb ( talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment several have voted, perhaps prematurely. I just updated the article with two references from the university itself, proving validity and notability. Again, I urge collaboration, and positive effort to improve these articles. As admins, it sure is easy to kill things, but I believe we serve our readers by creating, and improving. I can see no ill-intent in the creation of this article, it just needed some work. Jax MN ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The added references are neither independent nor show notability. The first reference is literary awarded for following campus rules. As for the second reference, an award by your own institution does not show independence nor notability as its recognition is limited on just one campus. An acceptable notable student org award in the country would be the Philippine Quill Award. -- Lenticel ( talk) 03:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I am unable to locate any references whatsoever that meet
WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing
++
15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment See the most recent version of the article. The two references I added are indeed independent, (i.e.: not controlled by the organization), and show that, to the school and its community, the organization is notable. The school recognized this particular group out of all other student groups with their inaugural award as a valued contributor. The organization did not control that vote.
- Fellow editors, I don't know what is motivating this rush to kill this article rather than to improve it. This is a small organization, but valid, notable to their community, and the article isn't just thin promotion like so many, many others. Killing it is an example of Deletionism, a harmful tendency within Wikipedia. Perhaps
Lenticel, normally a reasonable contributor, has decided to fight this battle because he/she took offense at me for questioning the PROD. The other votes seem to me to be casual "me too" votes, without considering improvement or attempting to help. I think that a fair-minded editor would pause, and adjust their vote to !Keep.
Jax MN (
talk)
16:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- My !vote was made *after* you added the (only) two refs to the article. It was also made *after* you'd already pointed out the same fact to an earlier !vote. Why would you comment, as you did, when you could easily have checked the timestamps for my !vote. Your other comments have really nothing to do with AfD matters and seem a but pointy. HighKing ++ 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fellow editors, I don't know what is motivating this rush to kill this article rather than to improve it. This is a small organization, but valid, notable to their community, and the article isn't just thin promotion like so many, many others. Killing it is an example of Deletionism, a harmful tendency within Wikipedia. Perhaps
Lenticel, normally a reasonable contributor, has decided to fight this battle because he/she took offense at me for questioning the PROD. The other votes seem to me to be casual "me too" votes, without considering improvement or attempting to help. I think that a fair-minded editor would pause, and adjust their vote to !Keep.
Jax MN (
talk)
16:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: the two sources are too closely-linked to the mother organization of the subject, coming from UP Diliman itself. That runs afoul to
WP:INDEPENDENT.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.)
14:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you, JWilz12345. You raise an important point, also alluded to by Dream Focus. The group operates without controversy, and without seeking publicity. They are not the subject of a scandal... Hence, they face a situation as do many of the "good" fraternities and sororities, in that they lack press coverage. Yet we've proven they are valid: they exist, and that they are notable to the college and its community: their awards. You've applied an overly broad interpretation of "Independent" here. The UP Halcyon group does not control what is on the College's website, nor vice-versa. The College was fully independent in its recognition of them.
- This is a haphazard PROD, by a skilled admin who nevertheless does not have involvement with this category of organization articles. Rather than fix the page, he/she merely opted to kill it. I objected, and found two good sources. Cordially, I note that Wikipedia's rules regarding Deletion state that participants should have a reasonable level of [subject] competence, and elaborates on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." This is why I refrain from PRODing or voting on nominations regarding Australian Rules Football, or Rap Music. They're not in my sphere of competence. --What Lenticel may not know is that there are potentially 100,000 or 200,000 local fraternities that may desire a WP article. Our Project group itself only supports a few of these who meet a bar of inclusion (tenure over 10 years, usually a physical location, external references, etc.). The Halcyon group meets our bar of inclusion, which is very stringent, documented, and consistent.
- I urge review of votes here, now that the page is improved with these references and clarifications.
Jax MN (
talk)
17:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- You need to take a close look at our guidelines and especially WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability. Since this is the third time you've commented after someone's !vote to mention that fact you've added references, you should also be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. You are not an inexperienced editors and so you should be aware we have various policies and guidelines. Since this is an organization, WP:NORG guidelines apply. There are two sections in particular - WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND which essentially mean that we require multiple references that provide in-depth and significant coverage on the topic (not students or members or events, but the actual organization) which contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Your first reference from University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College is a mention in a list. This is trivial coverage, fails CORPDEPTH. In addition, the university is affiliated with the organisation and this reference would also fail ORGIND. Your second reference from University of the Philippines Open University marks the 48th anniversity of UP Visayas Tacoblan College. This article has no attributed journalist/author so it could be argued it fails WP:RS as we don't know its origin. Leaving that aside, the topic organization has a mention-in-passing (one sentence) and has no in-depth information *about* the organization, fails CORPDEPTH. Bottom line, despite your urging and your protestations, you appear to misunderstand the criteria for notability and you are obviously closely connected with the org. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion or advertising or to be manipulated for "awareness", nor is it a Yellow Pages or some sort of directory. HighKing ++ 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the subject is marginally notable and the article is thin on sources, but what tips me in favor of keeping is that this group won an award from the university. That does make the group notable within student organizations in the Philippines. Also, the article is well written for a starter. Finally, I believe diversity is important within the Wikipedia community. Sometimes that means understanding the challenges in finding what we consider traditional sources and/or English language sources. Would you even know whether or not a Philippine source was major or minor if there were more sources? The bottom line is that the university is a legitimate and independent source. It is credible and important in context of this topic. Keep the article--encourage the authors improve it and bring more topics to Wikpedia.
Rublamb (
talk)
19:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- We need to see an argument based on our policies/guidelines, not opinion. The award (from the university they're affiliated with) is insignificant. The rest of your argument (award=notable, well written article, diversity is important, challenges for non-English sourcing, bottom line plea, move along nothing to see) is opinion and not based on guidelines, etc.
HighKing
++
10:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting from WP:JUSTAPOLICY "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." That is what I did--explain my reasoning. Sorry if my explanation did not match your opinion. So let me cite with guidelines to back my thoughts. WP:SURMOUNTABLE I agree that this article needs more sources to meet the criteria for notability. However, this problem is surmountable because with more time for its editors to explore non-English sources, Philippine source, and non-digital sources, this article can be improved. I am not using the "sources must exist somewhere" defense, but rather my professional understanding of content seeking in countries like the Philippines, along with the credibility of the existing sources. WP:ITSLOCAL This is my primary defense, what you refer to as diversity. Quoting from ITSLOCAL, "Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the I've never heard of it argument. Many subjects are esoteric, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. ...The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Wikipedia is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Wikipedia can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own." WP:IGNORINGATD Ultimately, I recommended retaining this article at this time because GNORINGATD says "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history." At a minimum, @ SBKSPP is correct that we should be recommending whether to keep or redirect/merge this content, rather than to simply delete. Rublamb ( talk) 14:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- We need to see an argument based on our policies/guidelines, not opinion. The award (from the university they're affiliated with) is insignificant. The rest of your argument (award=notable, well written article, diversity is important, challenges for non-English sourcing, bottom line plea, move along nothing to see) is opinion and not based on guidelines, etc.
HighKing
++
10:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Rublamb, this is a great clarification. You've quoted extensively from an essay
WP:ATA rather than our guidelines and to paraphrase, you're saying that it is likely that more sources exist and you also say that you rely primarily on ITSLOCAL. That section also says subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour do require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH which applies here since this is an organization. Bottom line: we need to see sources or we need to at *least* have some confidence that sources are likely to exist. To date, the only sources originate from other organizations that are affiliated with the topic org. We have seen no indications that any other sources exist, or likely to exist.
HighKing
++
15:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just did a quick Google search and came up with several new sources which I added, including the only LGBTQ magazine in the Philippines, a division of the Philippine government, and a nationwide news outlet founded by by 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa. Also, more sources from the university itself. I think this proves my point that there is more out there to be found as I have yet to search newspapers. Rublamb ( talk) 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's great you've added more sources, thank you. I think there's a misunderstanding in terms of what is required in order to establish notability though. I've summarised NCORP below.
- This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply.
- We require references that discuss the *organization* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
- "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the organization - quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
- Looking at the new references (you added 6).
- This from Philippine News Agency doesn't even mention the topic org, fails to establish notability, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from the University website also doesn't even mention the topic org, fails to establish notability, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from the LGBTQ magazine simply mentions the topic org by name, a mere mention-in-passing. It is not significant. Fails CORPDEPTH
- This from Rappler is a list of organizations running various initiatives to provide relief from the aftermath of Typhoon Odette in December 2021. The list contains over 100 organizations of which the topic org is one. It is not significant, contains no in-depth information about the topic org (fails CORPDEPTH) and merely repeats information provided by the topic org (fails ORGIND).
- This from the Dept of the Environment and Natural Resources is a mere mention-in-passing, is not significant, provides no detailed information about the topic org. Fails CORPDEPTH
- Finally, this from the University of the Philippines website states that the "author" is the University Media and Public Relations Office. The publishing org is affiliated with the topic org. It does not provide any in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH
- None of those references come close to meeting NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. This isn't about proving that the topic organization exists. Mere mentions or inclusions in lists are classified as trivial coverage. Material produced and repeated in publications have no intellectual independence and fails ORGIND.
HighKing
++
17:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood. Others were posting to delete UP Halcyon because there were no sources and nothing in Google. I proved both points to be incorrect, lending credence to my belief that there is a reasonable expectation that more references exist in sources from the Philippines. While I did not find an extensive article in my very quick scan of Google, the sources I found do qualify as independent and reliable. These citations back much of the previously unsourced content of the article, and also document the work undertaken by the organization which collectively builds a case for notability. For example, two of the sources I added prove that this group has partnered with the local city and a branch of the Philippine government on projects. Yes, I cited two articles that are not about the group, but they are about the award the group won (as in, is the award notable) and the group's founder (as in, is this group associated with anyone of importance and why does this name matter). One of my sources, that you say is just a list, includes a short paragraph about the Halcyon project and a graphic. I will repeat what @ Jax MN wrote previously: a university and its student organizations are independent of each other. I used to work in a department of information and development for a small state university--student orgs, the alumni association, the university, the sports office, and even the library are not the same, have totally different PR staff, have their own social media, and rarely speak to each other. Saying that the university is not an independent source in this case would be like saying we cannot use the NCAA as a source on Kansas Jayhawks basketball because the KU is a member of the NCAA. Or that NASCAR cannot be used as a source on Kyle Busch because he participates in NASCAR races. Just like the Jayhawks and Busch cannot control what the larger organizations publish, UP Halcyon cannot control what the university PR office writes. As I have said several times, I agree that more sources are needed to prove notability--I think everyone posting here agrees on this point. I am just suggesting that we take a minute and consider that this group with more than 5K Facebook followers and the potential for extensive coverage fits the criteria to keep under development. At a minimum, its content should be merged rather than deleted. Rublamb ( talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Rublamb, this is a great clarification. You've quoted extensively from an essay
WP:ATA rather than our guidelines and to paraphrase, you're saying that it is likely that more sources exist and you also say that you rely primarily on ITSLOCAL. That section also says subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour do require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH which applies here since this is an organization. Bottom line: we need to see sources or we need to at *least* have some confidence that sources are likely to exist. To date, the only sources originate from other organizations that are affiliated with the topic org. We have seen no indications that any other sources exist, or likely to exist.
HighKing
++
15:13, 11 August 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.