Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta Phi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta Phi

Chapter of a fraternity which makes no verifiable claim to notability. Further, the cited primary source is Self-published by the subject and, accordingly, borders on vanity. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I was the orginal prodder on this and think it does little to nothing to assert any notability. Individual chapters of fraternities don't get covered unless they're notable. Things like alumni gets mentioned in the national organization's article if one exists. Metros232 00:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Do not delete. The chapter has figured into the lives of several significant individuals, not the least of which are Sam Walton, Edgar Snow, and Kenneth Lay. To cultivate an understanding about these figures I think their college experience is worth noting. I must concede the article is at points vain, but it shall be edited to meet wikipedia standards. This particular chapter started out as a literary society and became affiliated with a fraternity years after its inception. I must respectfully challenge the idea that a fraternity's alumni do not lend notability. There are entries on prep schools in wikipedia that have far less significance. Perhaps the entry falls short in conveying how unique the chapter is. If so, it's worth mentioning the million dollar study facilities in-house and the chapter's four Rhode Scholars. Have you run across fraternities that can make similar boasts? This is no animal house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.204.40 (talk • contribs)
    • Please reference my comments on the talk page for the article. I gave a specific instance where I think the notability of the chapter could be asserted, if it is backed up with an independent source to corroborate it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Either keep, delete as copyvio or userfy to wait for author to work on it. (Yeah, I can say that, this is not a vote...) The important thing is that I think this does assert notability. Having been around for 135 years is pretty good for a student society in Missouri, I think. It would be a respectable age even in Europe. I hope the author can work on improving the tone of this and adding some better references than that website from which the text was taken. I am assuming there is a permission to use that text here. If not, this has to go to WP:CP. up+land 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's part of the sticky wicket with this article. The original editor claims that it is not copyright violation since he is a member of the fraternity and on behalf of the chapter controls the original text and licenses it GFDL by placing it here. However, that makes it a vanity article—or at best original research—since the original editor merely repeated comments made at their university web page. Hence, even if we clear the notability hurdle, we still have verifiability to deal with. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as vanity. Roodog2k 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

keep Why not leave the article? Almost every article about a person on wikipedia is a "vanity" article. Most are positive anyway. It is still interesting and I ended up reading it after reading that Ken Lay was a Beta at Missouri from a bio I read on the web. I think it is amazing that the Betas at Mizzou have had men like Sam Walton and Ken Lay (even though he was convicted and that takes the luster away from the association) as members. Shoot, most articles about cities, colleges, etc are postive and sya good things about the places. What else are they going to say? "Smith, Montana...the crappiest little town in the world where all the women are ugly and all the children are stupid." No, they are going to be positive. Big deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.104.148.171 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

  • delete vanity-Reid A. 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with 40,000 GHits or so M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Google hits are not relevant and are hard to measure for this context. Although, surprisingly, the chapter's web site was in the Top 10 hits. It was the only relevant hit in the first 30, though. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • merge, I think that parts of this article could be merged into the main article, for example the "Notable members" section, although some names are already on the list in the main Zeta Phi article. --TommyBoy 16:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the main Beta Theta Pi article? That's where the merge would go. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My mistake, you are correct. --TommyBoy 16:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.--Ezeu 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why should every single "chapter" of every single "fraternity" or "sorority" deserve an article? This article even reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. It is probably only vanity. JIP | Talk 09:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Agreed. Chatper articles are starting to show up for various Beta chapters; based on the results of this, I will Prod or AfD them as well. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Beta Theta Pi article. Vizjim 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and do not merge. Agree that its not worth having an entry for every fraternity chapter, however, judging by the alumni and (relatively) long history this association appears to be anything but pedestrian. To merge this chapter into the main Beta Theta Pi article would wash away the significance of the local history, which appears to be considerable. Would you merge the Yankees into an article on major league baseball if there was something interesting to tell about the franchise? Of course not. So it is with this chapter. I'm guessing it was the prominence of the Zeta Phi chapter that drew those individuals to become members, not the main fraternity of Beta Theta Pi. Seems like the standard for notability has been met. Keep the article if it will be further cleaned up to meet wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.64.241 (talk • contribs) User's two contributions are on this discussion.
  • Delete as a local chapter of a fraternity...or merge to Beta Theta Pi if the originator(s) desire.--Isotope23 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs a cleanup, but it's salvagable, and notable enough. Dylan 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as fratcruft. I believe that no fraternity deserves any encyclopedia article unless it's nationally notable and important for major activities. A chapter of such a fraternity certainly doesn't. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Hard to see why there is still debate about notabilty. If there is concern that other fraternity chapters will want their own wikipedia pages, make them meet this high standard. If they have a 135 year history and alumni on the level of Sam Walton and Ken Lay, let their pages stay too. There seems to be some bizarre agenda against fraternities in some if these evaluations. What's the big deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.179.83 (talk • contribs) User's first edit.
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.