Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Annex (SigEp)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Annex (SigEp)

Delete This is completey ridiculous. It serves no purpose and is nothing more than an elaborate vandalism. Also, what's to prevent ANY chapter of ANY club from creating a page? Collective-DZYN

• Delete - Not notable, google gives no results -Dan Granahan 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Though, calling it vandalism is a little harsh. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I wouldn't call it vandalism per se, just silly. Dysepsion

Keep

• FIRST, this article qualifies under the Wikipedia definition of Importance.
  • • The policy on Importance states the following:
      • "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if...: it is an expansion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject."
      • "If an article is "important" according to the above then it should not be deleted on the basis of it being: (1) insufficiently important, famous or relevant, or (2) currently small or a stub, or (3) obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident.)"
    • Clearly Sigma Phi Epsilon and the Fraternity and Sorority system qualify as established subjects. An offshoot of a fraternity is therefore "an expansion upon an established subject."
• SECOND, this is NOT vandalism. Wikipedia defines "vandalism" as follows:
  • • "Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism...."
    • There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this content is inaccurate in any way. There are no obscenities and no attempt was made to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
  • Please note Dan Granahan's revisions to Sigma Phi Epsilon. He has TWICE accused me of vandalism simply because I listed The Annex (SigEp) as a "Related Organization." I take offense at his accusation.
• THIRD, since when is "silly" grounds for deletion. On that basis, perhaps we should delete Skull and Bones since many people would consider it "silly." Just because an organization starts at a university does not mean it should not be included here. See Federalist Society. To think otherwise would mean that any organization, no matter how silly, should be included here simply for having a prominent member or two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.118.221 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 August 2005.
• FOURTH, a comparison of other fraternity-related articles demonstrates that there is a precedent for this page:
  • • Delta (chapter) A specific chapter of Alpha Phi Omega sorority.
    • Epsilon Iota A local chapter of Psi Upsilon fraternity.

• Response: Obviously you changed the article since when I first put up the deletion tag when you referred to members by nicknames. I apologize for labeling it vandalism. Nevertheless, this article is extremely point of view. To call Skull and Bones silly is a ridiculous charge. People know about Skull and Bones but there is absolutely nothing on the web to even verify that this article is about a real organization, so where is the precedent in that? Collective-DZYN

• Response to your Response: So basically a single web page and submission to a few major search engines would be sufficient, right??? (article creator)

• Delete Not notable — Linnwood ^(talk) 00:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, it's not vandalism, and I apologise if your feelings were hurt by that, o article creator. And yes, I believe you that everything the article says is accurate (aside from the comparison with the OJ Simpson trial, perhaps). But still and nevertheless, delete. DS 01:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I never accused you of vandalism. Check the history please. I simply reverted your edits. Regardless, this article still qualifies for deletion. It is a simply an elaborate vanity page with no encyclopedic information. Though it is nicely formatted, the article is clearly just bragging about your fraternity. Note phrasing such as:

The new brothers looked promising, but their hidden agendas and absence of partying skills soon rose to the surface.

Vanity alone is not qualification for deletion, however the Annex is also unverifiable. The only Annex related link I can find on google is a bar in Ohio.[1] Granted you could make yourself a web page, but with no other reputable sources, this is insufficient and qualifies for deletion. I vote for Delete.

Also, please note this organization has no affiliation with Sigma Phi Epsilon. The only connection is that the founders used to be members of Sigma Phi Epsilon, at least according to the anonymous author 66.65.118.221. --Dan Granahan 14:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone who wants to know the origin of this please look at the very beginning drafts of this article. One will see that this was originally created as a joke article. For your accusation "So basically a single web page and submission to a few major search engines would be sufficient, right???". You misinterepret the entire point. NO ONE can verify this and this is contrary to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Also, I retract what I said that this is not vandalism. This IS vandalism. Refer to vandalism section under silly vandalism where it explains "joke articles". Who are you trying to fool and what are you trying to prove? --Collective-DZYN 23:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • REPLY: Once again I take offense to your characterization of the article as vandalism. Do you find something untrue about the earlier versions??? You can complain all you want about a lack of verifiability or notability. I concede that those points are debatable. However, quit your bitching about vandalism since this does not qualify in any way as vandalism. [article author]

• • • It should also be noted that EDITS were made AFTER the vote for deletion tag was placed which is in violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Therefore votes should be cast based on the content of the article on when the tag was placed not after. --Collective-DZYN 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the VfD tag says "You are welcome to edit this article", and improving an article to "save" it from VfD is considered an acceptable practice. Just sayin'. - Thatdog 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• My mistake on the edits. However vanity is qualification for deletion --Collective-DZYN 02:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless further evidence of notability is provided. - Thatdog 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and everyone should have a glass of warm milk and a lie down. Me included... ahhh. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 100% non-notable trivia about (so far) non-notable people. Any information that survives NPOV should be put in the article about SPE. Sdedeo 01:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.