Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Epsilon (fraternity)

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 no consensus. Item has been up for quite a while, and I don't feel like we are getting any closer to an actual verdict on the subject being notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Epsilon (fraternity)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable defunct fraternity. The prod was removed with a very thorough and well thought out explanation on the article's talk page. However this is an issue with that explanation. It relies heavily on "The Fraternities and Sororities Project has offered guidelines for notability within the project, however, those are very recent guidelines written by the creator of this article, and without any discussion or consensus. There is simply not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I vote to keep this article in consideration of all the following points:

Occasionally, a Fraternity and Sorority article gets nominated for AfD. My observation is that these occur on a very irregular, sporadic basis. I began paying more attention to these, and realized that the F&S Project wasn't as active as it once was, and I was surprised at the holes in our watchlist, knowing we should keep a closer eye. Hence, I grew motivated to develop a consistent approach toward these organizational pages, to develop rules within the Project that are framed in relation to these societies (but entirely in keeping with WP rules), and most importantly, to help usher new users in to aid the Project, and Wikipedia. I'm supportive of Newbies, where some tend to blast them. One thing I have been doing is to update the Talk pages of all these societies, leaving process steps to help Newbies learn, and participate (the {{to do}} template). These pages aren't highly controversial, like some that are politically charged.

These Fraternity and Sorority pages seem to be an easy entry point where we can gain educated, motivated new users. For some reason Greek Letter societies tend to create rabid supporters. I'm spending time cleaning up many of these articles myself and collaborating with others joining the F&S Project on how to write NPV language, etc. --WP:NPV language seems more important to me regarding these fraternity pages than aggressively policing WP:GNG for historically factual but sometimes small groups.

I drafted these rules as a teaching exercise for Project participants. They've not gathered much comment either way, which I hope means they are essentially non-controversial. I've suggested that Project participants should comment, inviting collaboration.

As to this particular article, a Stub for a minor society where Project participants are urged to research and post more information, I still think it useful. Certainly it is factual. Yes, it's too short. If I was a genealogical researcher, I'd appreciate the article. If I found a pin for sale, with those letters, or had one as an antique dealer, I'd appreciate the article. If I was a history-minded member of the successor chapter at Hampden-Sidney, I'd appreciate the article. If I was writing a history of student life at one of these colleges, I'd appreciate the article. And because User:Onel5969 raised the concern, I explained the rationale on the Talk page. I agree that it is a small, dormant group. But I hope you will agree to keep the article. Jax MN (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lines about the chapter that was merged into Beta Theta Pi to it. There are a lot of pins or antiques one could be interested in, but that doesn't justify a separate article on any topic for which they may exist. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, although nominator should consider that just because a fraternity is defunct/no longer exists does not mean it is no longer notable. Notability doesn't change over time. If the fraternity was notable when it existed it's notable now. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 09:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Chess, I agree that defunct in no way reflects on notability, since WP:NTEMP. The addition of defunct was simply descriptive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Slight formatting change of my vote, above, for clarity). Reywas92, I appreciate your point, about shifting some of the content of the article to the Beta Theta Pi article (maybe as a reference to that specific chapter), but in doing so we lose the rest of the short history of the group. It wasn't just a local that was absorbed; I'm looking for a crest, and further notes about the other chapters. Did the members of the other chapters die out en masse during the Civil War? That's a story in itself.

Again, I think the rules I offered for notability within the project allow us to be consistent in application, allowing far more helpful cleanup guidance versus hashing out a haphazard AfD request here. Under those rules, thousands of local group WP articles won't be written or accepted, until they meet our own bar of notability. Seems more fair, more consistent, and less tedious for veteran editors that can spend their valuable time elsewhere. Jax MN (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 3 January 2021 (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.