Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Pi (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Pi

[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)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, the only provided example of independent, significant coverage currently provided is [1]; as a student publication, it would normally be considered unreliable, although given the subject matter it may be admissible here. Even if we're charitable with that source, we're short the additional sources that would add up to meeting notability guidelines. I was unable to find anything online, although my search was admittedly impeded by false positives from unrelated greek life orgs that include the letters Delta and Pi. There's been an extended discussion at the talk page, Talk:Delta Pi, where Jax MN has made an argument for notability by way of passing references and affiliations with notable organizations, but I'm not seeing enough examples of coverage to think that we're really in WP:NEXIST range. I don't have a strong opinion on deletion vs restoring the preexisting redirect; at a glance, the former redirect target, Mugsy's Girls, may not be notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, but AfD automatically listing all other AfDs with the prefix "Delta Pi" seems like an edge case that should probably be fixed _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I normally presume that fraternities and sororities that exist with multiple chapters are notable per WP:ORG (and those with only one chapter are not). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The earlier, deleted stubs from 2005 and 2010 were not useful. But this new version of the page is far improved, and matches many others in the fraternities and sororities project for style and format. The Talk:Delta_Pi page elaborates on the chase for references and how, many of whom, after 30 years, this group meets the requirements for notability. Jax MN (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mild. Is https://ryersonian.ca/ryes-big-fat-greek-secret/ enough? Without that, I would definitely be at delete. I think so given that the article is specifically focused on them.Naraht (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unusual for an article about an organization to be kept on the basis of a single source, let alone a student publication. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill, please clarify, do you still suspect that the organization does not exist, and has somehow been a 30-year fraud? Or is your concern that it is still not notable, with multiple chapters and hundreds of graduates referencing it on many resumes or Linked In pages? I previously suggested I could add these but it would be tedious and duplicative. There are perhaps a thousand such societies listed on Wikipedia, some active and some dormant, and genealogical researchers like me use these Wikipedia pages to confirm where relatives went to school, where to start looking at yearbooks, and the provenance of mysterious old pins we inherit. For these researchers alone, the pages are valuable. What does it hurt, keeping them? Jax MN (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable. A few chapters founded and a bunch of graduates listing it on Linkedin doesn't do anything to establish the subject's notability, what we need is significant coverage (i.e. actual analysis) in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If we don't have such coverage, it is impossible for us to write an article without engaging in original research and taking primary sources at their word. Without the presence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, there's no way for us as editors to know that the information presented isn't biased or missing something important. Creating articles for subjects that don't meet notability guidelines undermines Wikipedia's epistemic foundation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet the GNG or ORGCRITE. The only source which is somewhat significant is Ryersonian [2] which isn't all that substantial, and by itself, certainly doesn't amount to significant coverage. All other sources seem to be incidental/trival coverage. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These sources are abysmal. Notability is demonstrated by substantial reliable sources. Tumblrs and extremely trivial passing mentions are not acceptable for this purpose. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a REFIMPROVE template. Existence is proven. Notability is shown in spite of lack of standard references used by fraternities (Baird's, yearbooks, national news, or university imprimator). A clear summary of why these are missing is discussed on the Talk page. I agree that it is niche. Much of WP is. But these references aren't abysmal; a provincial incorporation filing isn't trivial, several reviews by disinterested parties provide a preponderance of evidence of Delta Pi's persistent presence; known corporate entities refer to the group as a prominent sponsor. I have no connection to the sorority: I am not Canadian, not Jewish, and not female. I don't know why this particular article, better written than many that need more references, is causing concern. Too often, Canadian fraternal societies are marginalized, as are Jewish groups that some seek to suppress. Thus I favor leaving the template for REFIMPROVE to do its work, and leaving the article in place. It seems a far better and more useful article than the redirect to a fictitious sorority that it replaced. Jax MN (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the sourcing is terrible. When you have to 'prove' notability with footnotes like "The sorority is linked on several Canadian social media sites, such as this national list" and "Local community newspapers regularly list Delta Pi among campus organizations, like this 2015 Excalibur article" it's obvious there's nothing better available. Participating in charity events does not provide notability unless there is independent coverage of the participation for some reason, and mentions on websites aren't coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2020 (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.