Talk:Acacia (fraternity)/Archive 1

Establishing Notability
Should the Acacia Fraternity be considered notable by Wikipedia standards? At the moment, No. The reason for this is the lack of citation to reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as required by WP:ORG). It seems as if a lot of work has gone into this article... It would be a shame to have it nominated for deletion. But if notability can not be established, then it will be. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD would not need to be considered here. Please check the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities page for several discussions relating to similar topics. You can nominate it for AFD but i don't think it would pass nor should it. This organization is quite notable within the Greek community.Trey (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I raised the issue here first, rather than going imediately to AfD. You say that the orgainization is quite notable within the Greek community... OK... PROVE IT! Add some reliable sources that discuss the fraternity and its notability.  (I don't actually doubt your word on this... my point is that we need to establish that fact through reference to outside sources... as that is Wikipedia policy).   Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As i said please move this discussion to the other page were more editors can find it. Establishing nobility and citations for Greek pages is extremely difficult because not much academic work is done on them nor are they reported in the media unless they do something bad. We have had several discussions with administrators and regular editors and it has become common practice to accept campus publications and the organization's own national page as reliable word. If they were making false claims the other Greek organizations would call them out on it and they have on several occasions. No one disputes the fact this organization is established on 30+ campuses which in and of itself makes it notable even though that fact comes from the national page. Why? because no ones else reports that there is no umbrella or academic organization that monitors and reports does that mean all Greek organizations should be banned from wikipedia? i think not. If you like you can go to each university and verify but that's your prerogative. I've had this argument 10 or 15 times before on several Greek pages every few months another editor comes along and does this I'll AFD this if you can't get me some cited facts thing. Then everyone rallies behind the page shouts at each other and generally gets their feelings hurt until the editor goes away or an admin steps in and tells everyone to shut up. So go ahead and AFD it. All the same points will be brought up all the same arguments made and in the end the page will stay. Maybe a few more references will be added which would be nice but that will be it. If you do manage to get it taken down feel secure in the knowledge that you removed good information about a notable organization from Wikipedia and the value of this website is now less for your efforts. I'm not going to keep this argument going here though. Either AFD it or read the discussions on the project page first and chat about this issue there. Trey (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that you have added some independant sources that establish notability, and have thus fixed the problem (was it really all that difficult?), I see no need or justification for further action. Sometimes just the hint of deletion achieves the desired result.  I am sure you can find even more reliable sources if you try, but my basic concern has been dealt with. Thanks.
 * On the broader side of things... if you are constantly having to battle the same issues on multiple pages, that should tell you something. It means that your project is out of sync with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

or instead of being a pain you could have actually done something useful and linked to any one of these pages yourself. Trey (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know the topic or the sources well enough to know which sources are reliable. When I see a problem with an article relating to a topic that I am unqualified to edit, I simply draw it to the attention of those who do know the topic and the sources, and let them fix the problem. I thank you for doing so. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarity of Description
"It consists of a vertical triband of gold-black-gold with the fraternity arms on the center (or on a fess cotised sable three right triangles of the field)" While a fine sentence if it was in a heraldry catalog, this is certainly not clear to a generally educated reader since it contains 4 technical terms about coat-of-arms. Despite all the words it isn't even complete. On another spot on the same page we see that the triangles have an orientation "3-4-5 right triangle of the first quadrant".

....three stripes, ... special edge on the black, ...three particular triangles.

Eschew Obfuscation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian-PH (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Acacia (fraternity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913121620/http://www.acacia.org:80/foundation_about.php to http://acacia.org/foundation_about.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Acacia (fraternity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305203930/http://www.uiowa.edu/~acacia/about.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~acacia/about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719205702/http://www.acacia.org/about_chapters.php to http://www.acacia.org/about_chapters.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)