Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Omega Phi
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. As has been noted below, although the organisation may well have met the criteria set out in WP:NONPROFIT if there were verifiable reliable sources, these sources do not appear to exist. As such the article does not warrant inclusion at this moment in time. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beta Omega Phi
- Beta Omega Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local fraternity. Fails WP:ORG. No national organization or oversight; not recognized by North-American Interfraternity Conference. per WP:N, a local fraternity of this sort must have its notability established by third party sources: here, no such sources exist. GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Does seem to be small according to the article (only 3 chapters) so rather local; but the organization is getting on to 50 years old, and it was an Asian American Greek organization begun at a time when those were exceedingly rare; and it has continued to this day. I would give those two factors enough weight under WP:NONPROFIT to keep it for now, and try to solicit some interest in improvement. --Lquilter (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the points in WP:NONPROFITapply: this is neither a national group, nor is it "verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources," also known as WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's the two-part test and I don't argue that this org passes based on the two-part test (I haven't done the WP:RS search myself, though). What I am saying is that there are other criteria to be considered, as WP:NONPROFIT says under "Additional considerations". These need to be "reported by independent sources" of course. Based on the facts of the organization, without looking for RS, these additional considerations support keeping, IMO. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. You !vote keep based on the presence of alternate tests other than WP:GNG, but you aren't able to show that the topic satisfies the alternate tests?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am using the alternate guideline, WP:NONPROFIT -- "Non-commercial organizations". Within WP:NONPROFIT there is an a+b test ("Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:" national/international scope + multiple reliable sources), AND that is followed by a section that says "Additional considerations are" which describes other cases that do not fit within the a+b guidelines but still are notable -- e.g., local organizations with national/int'l coverage; "factors that have attracted widespread attention" which includes longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization .... (+ independent sources). --Lquilter (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and yet, you can show no independent sources, which are still required under your most generous interpretation of the WP:NONPROFIT.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't tried to find sources, so it's a bit presumptuous to say I can't show them (or they can't be shown). Have you tried to find sources and been unable to? Your nomination does not make that clear. If sources exist but are simply not in the article, AND it otherwise meets some criteria in WP:NONPROFIT, then that's a reason to slate the article for improvement; not deletion for lack of notability. If you've got a problem with WP:NONPROFIT's application here or my thoughts on it, by all means say so. If your beef is simply the sources, then is it that (a) sources can NOT be found, because you have tried, or (b) no sources currently exist in the article? --Lquilter (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and yet, you can show no independent sources, which are still required under your most generous interpretation of the WP:NONPROFIT.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am using the alternate guideline, WP:NONPROFIT -- "Non-commercial organizations". Within WP:NONPROFIT there is an a+b test ("Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:" national/international scope + multiple reliable sources), AND that is followed by a section that says "Additional considerations are" which describes other cases that do not fit within the a+b guidelines but still are notable -- e.g., local organizations with national/int'l coverage; "factors that have attracted widespread attention" which includes longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization .... (+ independent sources). --Lquilter (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. You !vote keep based on the presence of alternate tests other than WP:GNG, but you aren't able to show that the topic satisfies the alternate tests?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's the two-part test and I don't argue that this org passes based on the two-part test (I haven't done the WP:RS search myself, though). What I am saying is that there are other criteria to be considered, as WP:NONPROFIT says under "Additional considerations". These need to be "reported by independent sources" of course. Based on the facts of the organization, without looking for RS, these additional considerations support keeping, IMO. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the points in WP:NONPROFITapply: this is neither a national group, nor is it "verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources," also known as WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unverified and unsourced, and apparently not notable. A Google search turned up nothing independent; Google News Archive found nothing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.