Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabe-Shi-Win-Gi-Ji-Kens

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. --Coredesat 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gabe-Shi-Win-Gi-Ji-Kens

Gabe-Shi-Win-Gi-Ji-Kens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Awards preclude a speedy. Non notable Scouting organization. No notability asserted beyond Scouting awards. No sources showing outside coverage. No sources whatsoever beyond it's own leadership. DarkAudit 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

so you are saying that since i have no creditable sources, i cant be here... what else do i need to get to have this page stay?

For the Order of the Arrow, we have lodges with in it and we just wanted a page in wiki for Gabe just so people could find out more about us if they wished. There really are no published materials or anything that we can cite, mainly because we are non-profit and don't ask for recognition.

• Comment Please place your comments at the bottom of the page or at the proper place in the conversation so others can follow along. What I'm saying with this nomination is that the article currently does not meet Wikipedia standards. I refer you to WP:CORP regarding organizations:

"1. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. 2. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." The sources you have provided are your own leadership. Most editors will find that unacceptable. Significant news items from reliable and verifiable sources will be what the editors will demand. DarkAudit 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not satisfy WP:ORG. CIreland 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The order of the arrow is a national organization, and our lodge is most of the lower peninsula of michigan. I am rather dissipointed that just this one page is causing so much conflict. I'll look for some more sources i guess if that is what you wish me to do.

• Comment This is nothing compared to other discussions. Don't be discouraged. The guidelines in WP:ORG and WP:BIO are there to help you. An AfD isn't a straight 'kill it! or 'keep it!' vote, it's a discussion, and will sometimes help an editor steer an article away from the precipice of deletion, and towards something that will stand scrutiny. It's just going to be a little harder in your case due to the local nature of your lodge. DarkAudit 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Order of the Arrow has a Wikipedia entry because it is a significant national organisation. The individual lodges of the Order of the Arrow are not national. CIreland 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being "totally awesome" is not the same as being notable. I was once a member of the Order of the Arrow myself, what seems like a hundred years ago. Deor 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Order is probably notable--but local chapters are not.DGG 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• 'Merge with OotA article -- 195.92.40.49
• Merge There is nothing at all notable here. Sounds like a noble organization, and probably a great group of people. However, article is vanity, full of peacock language, lacking in sources/references. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. What exactly do you think should be merged? Order of the Arrow contains nothing about individual lodges (except a mention of the first one). Why should information about this particular lodge be included there? Deor 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable chapter of a national organization. Lack of third-party sources is a problem, and I'm afraid it's probably vanity as well. Wikipedia is not a free web host, and if you want people to know about your "awesome" lodge, you'll have to try elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 20 May 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.