Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and sororities

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fraternities and sororities. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fraternities and sororities|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fraternities and sororities. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and sororities/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

Fraternities and sororities

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Nu Tau

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. 18:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC). AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article continues to be improved even after winning an earlier Deletion prod that was offered, where the vote was to keep it. I fully disagree with the OP's statement that the article is "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". It is modeled after a number of acceptable, similar Start-class articles that the Fraternity and Sorority Project continues to support and improve. The rush to delete such random Greek-letter organization articles, without a comprehensive process or rationale is harmful to Wikipedia. We track these societies, which number some 500,000, providing articles for those few who show notability with continued existence for ten years or more, and which have a regional or national presence of at least three chapters. This approach is consistent with major reference sources for this category that pre-date Wikipedia for 135 years, and which after long discussion and consensus building here, we follow. I do not know why the OP didn't alert the F&S Project of the AfD, but I have corrected that omission. Jax MN (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need secondary source coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found and added a secondary source that provides significant coverage. That should suffice for proof of notability. I also did a quick copy edit that removed some of the content that was copied from their website. It is a member of the Professional Fraternity Association, making it a legitimate organization. I have not looked through campus newspapers, but am confident that more non-fraternity sources can be found based on the locations of its chapters. Rublamb (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This is why editors should not concentrate on scoring Prods. Especially things like frats and radio stations, most would find, or already have, adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (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.