User talk:Patronanejo/Zeta Delta Xi

Restoring Zeta Delta Xi

 * I am not the author of--nor have I ever contributed to--this article, and I have no connection with the subject. I performed a Google search on the organization this evening, and followed the Wikipedia link to discover the article deleted:
 * 20:38, 22 June 2012 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) deleted page Zeta Delta Xi (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
 * I do not believe A7 applies in this case.
 * The article cited several examples of the significance of the organization, foremost among which is that after 130 years at Brown University as Zeta Psi fraternity, the Epsilon chapter had its charter revoked because of its decision to accept females as full members of the organization.
 * Despite being one of the first chapters of Zeta Psi, the Epsilon chapter was forced to forfeit its franchise for what was then viewed as a radical defense of gender equity. They are now fully-chartered at Brown University as Zeta Delta Xi, a coed fraternity in full and equal standing with the rest of the Greek community.
 * The article Zeta Delta Xi should be restored because
 * the deletion criterion cited by SarekOfVulcan appears to have been misapplied: A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines;
 * despite no per se claims of significance (i.e., the organization is significant because...), several credible reasons for the organization's significance are clearly provided;
 * as an article under the category Student Societies in the United States, the threshold for significance should plainly be in the context of organizations comprising that category.
 * My primary concern is that as a third party, do I have any systematic recourse for restoration of a deleted article?
 * I realize I am coming in post hoc, but I am troubled that this deletion is presented as a fait accompli, with no information provided other than date of deletion, editor responsible for deletion, and criterion cited for deletion. Transparency can be expected to suffer when accommodating such large numbers of users, but I can find no arena for recourse, debate, or consensus-seeking regarding restoration--nor can I find evidence that any such discussion ever took place.
 * Patronanejo (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is that as a third party, do I have any systematic recourse for restoration of a deleted article?
 * I realize I am coming in post hoc, but I am troubled that this deletion is presented as a fait accompli, with no information provided other than date of deletion, editor responsible for deletion, and criterion cited for deletion. Transparency can be expected to suffer when accommodating such large numbers of users, but I can find no arena for recourse, debate, or consensus-seeking regarding restoration--nor can I find evidence that any such discussion ever took place.
 * Patronanejo (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize I am coming in post hoc, but I am troubled that this deletion is presented as a fait accompli, with no information provided other than date of deletion, editor responsible for deletion, and criterion cited for deletion. Transparency can be expected to suffer when accommodating such large numbers of users, but I can find no arena for recourse, debate, or consensus-seeking regarding restoration--nor can I find evidence that any such discussion ever took place.
 * Patronanejo (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)