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 redirect‎ to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. At least one source has been put forward, but the need for a standalone list - rather than prose descriptions of the settings - hasn't found consensus Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Tintin locations

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

Poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Fraternities and sororities, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternities and sororities?? Why? -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have The Adventures of Tintin#Settings and a couple of articles on fictional locations in the series such as Syldavia and Borduria. Purely cataloguing which locations appear in which stories as is done here doesn't seem helpful, however. It might be possible to write a stand-alone article about how locations are used in the series based on sources analysing that subject, but the bulk of this article is basically just a bunch of WP:RAWDATA. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. Goustien (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is simply a mass of WP:RAWDATA without any reference to how these places tie into the Tintin series, and the way they are depicted. TH1980 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: covered as a set in https://www.cnrseditions.fr/catalogue/geographie-territoires/les-geographies-de-tintin/; with certain regions also addressed as a set in various sources, including https://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/l-arabie-de-tintin,1628 https://www.topito.com/top-pays-imaginaires-tintin All the countries are listed in Géopolitique. Atlas des 160 lieux stratégiques du monde. (2018). Editions Ellipses There are plenty of other sources on the topic in Tintin dictionaries. So meets WP:NLIST, and is a good SPLIT. -Mushy Yank. 19:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very good source, but someone needs to use it to move this article beyond a pure plot summary. Until then this can be redirected. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Belgium. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep needs to be better sourced, but does appear to have been covered as a set by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The OR delete votes are incorrect - while there's a chance a list item or two might be OR, since I haven't reviewed the sources completely, this list has clearly been the topic of secondary coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a great deal of interest in Herge's choice of settings and the way he depicts them, and especially how that changed over time, which material could be used to expand the paragraph in the main article. But this listing is largely trivia, and it doesn't do anything towards that understanding. To be blunt, it's the sort of east stamp-collecting list article that WP authors write instead of grappling with the real work of writing a coherent analysis. Looking at the British sublist, for instance, most of it has to do with The Black Island, which, duh, is set there, and the rest are incidental and lack context. There are many entries which are only passing mentions, again without any context. Yeah, sure, you can make such an article, but really, the actually useful list information already appears in a list of the works themselves, because it's the larger setting of each— Russia, America, Peru, Arabia, and so forth— that are worth "listing". Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TH1980. This is mostly unsourced WP:OR, and redundant with The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. It's not tenable to create separate lists of every scene from a piece of fuction. A redirect or selective merge may be an acceptable compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is mostly unsourced and potentially contained OR. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prhartcom: Goustien (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings per WP:ATD. This list is mostly unsourced WP:RAWDATA, but it may potentially become fixed into a nice paragraph in the main article. Archrogue (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2025 (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.

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. A close call, but consensus has gradually swung to the view the article is unsalvageable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Student Federation

AfDs for this article:

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

notability KabirDH (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, the article does not meet the standard for inclusion. Chegouahora (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Chegouahora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Fraternities and sororities, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The article violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability policies. There are multiple Extreme POVs trying to link the group with insurgents by using “seemingly” valid reliable sources, but these have nothing to do with how the term is used by the organisation itself. Stating this the Etymology section is excessive and unsupported by reliable sources discussing the term in the context of the organization, violating WP:UNDUE. Also Newspaper sources merely repeating the organization’s claims do not meet WP:RS standards as independent, third-party references. I don’t feel the lyngdoh paper is reliable as it’s written by a high schooler and newspaper articles mostly just repeat what the organisation has said. So this article needs to be further cut down and taking all the sources into account I don’t feel it will should be more than 1-2 paragraphs long ZoUnified (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate discussion happening regarding the undue weight on the Talk page, and a possible RfC if additional edit warring occurs. The POV issues can be resolved without deletion/draftifying EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All the sources listed are Third Party and Reliable. There is also considerable coverage on the organisation that would support keeping the Wikipedia article on it. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's at least one article on the page that meets WP:GNG as an independent secondary source and WP:SIGCOV from other sources. The Lyngdoh source, the currently used Haokip source and the Mokokchung times source would each, by themselves, fulfill GNG. By policy, this article's content may need better verifiability but clearly meets standards for inclusion as an article.

As an outsider to WP:INDIA, I've additionally observed bludgeoning with citation tags that have been mostly resolved as well as a lot of wishywashy claims of a lack of notability over the last day. If these stem from an objection to the WP:POV views on the term Wesea, wikipedia is not censored and it's merely an uncomfortable fact that Wesea is in the organisation's name. All of this is, of course, irrelevant to this AfD but is perhaps relevant context to consider given that the nominee did not explain at all what their concerns are. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe topic SN bastion (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— SN bastion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am very surprised that there is this much coverage for a student group founded less than a year ago, but the sources narrowly get it over the line IMO. The best by far is the Haokip article, which seems to be a proper peer-reviewed journal article focused entirely on this group. The other sources are much less convincing. The Lyngdoh source is by a high school student and I'm sceptical that the site is a WP:RS. The other sources, including the Mokokchung Times, EastMojo, Shillong Times, and Hub Network pieces, don't have bylined reporters and seem to essentially repeat the group's announcements, so I think they should be discounted somewhat. But the Khasi language source is good, and the sources I can find make me strongly suspect there is much more out there in little-spoken northeast Indian languages that I'm just not able to find. I would also note that this group split off from Northeast Students' Organization, which seems to be unambiguously notable. So at worst I think this is potentially a case of WP:TOOSOON. MCE89 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to delete. My initial view was that the Haokip journal article seemed to be by far the best source, and that alongside some weaker sources there was just about enough to meet WP:GNG. But after looking at it again given Worldbruce and Kautilya3's comments below, including the fact that it seems to cite at least some non-existent references, I don't think it's reliable or that any weight can be placed on it. Without that journal article, there's nowhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article clearly meets the inclusion criteria, contrary to the nominator's claim. The sources cited such as Lyngdoh,Haokip, Mokokchung Times and the Morung Express article strongly support the article's compliance with WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is edging towards a keep since the opposing arguments are made by users who barely edited anything else. Nonetheless, a little more input from the community is appreciated for a clear cut consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough here to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What Benison said.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3, RangersRus, Raymond3023, and Walsh90210: Notifying, as concerned editors per WP:APPNOTE, all who participated in the previous deletion discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources 2-5 say nothing about the WSF, they are only background about the term Wesean. EastMojo is paywalled, so I can't evaluate it fully, but the site follows a "citizen journalists" model, which is not a hallmark of reliable sources. From what can be seen, "In a statement, the WSF ...", it appears to be like Hub News, Ka Shelm, Mokokchung Times, Nagaland Post, The Morung Express, The Shillong Times, and Thingkho Le Maicha. All of them are essentially primary source press releases, repeating what WSF said in a letter - paraphrased for length perhaps, but without any critical analysis, evaluation, synthesis, or reference to sources other than the WSF. These do nothing to establish notability.

Lyngdoh is a high school student who doesn't appear to have published anything else, writing in the "Assertion" (i.e. opinion) section of Round Table India, which encourages visitors to "Please send your article submissions to contact.roundtableindia@gmail.com". This is not a reliable source for anything other than Lyngdoh's opinion.

Haokip is a political science student at Mizoram University. He doesn't appear to have published anything else. His paper has 7 notes and 39 references. Only two have publication dates after the March/April 2024 formation of the WSF, and neither of them can be found by Google or by direct searches of the Human Rights Watch and North East Now websites (the supposed publishers). This does not inspire confidence in reliability. If it is reliable, it is not enough on its own to establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not notable and the sources do not justify it existing in Wikipedia. Halum Halum (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)— Halum Halum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to admin Please carefully consider the decision, as there are many sock accounts and anti-India editors trying to sway the outcome of this AfD using WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm unsure about voting on this AfD since I'm outside of India, but I can see many sock accounts involved. 49.49.25.233 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:GNG, we need at least two reliable sources with substantial coverage about the topic. The two sources that have such coverage (Lyngdoh and Haokip) are not reliable. They are student research and Haokip's article is really, really poor in its citations (citing non-existing sources, sources not supporting claims etc.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After the last AFD, still I find that the organization fails notability with no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2025 (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.