User talk:Xmskab

Delta delta phi zeta
The issues the maintenance templates refer to have not been resolved - there are not enough external references to establish notability, and the two major editors of the article appear to be connected to the organisation, meaning there is a conflict of interest. Please do not simply delete the tags again, continuing to do so could lead to you being blocked for disruptive editing. If you want to make constructive suggestions for how to improve the article, please use the talk page. Thank you Melcous (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not related to the organization. That would be a conflict of interest. Can you please tell me what I have to do to make the maintenance tag go away. Xmskab (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please be patient, there is no hurry with wikipedia, building an encyclopaedia can take time. Maintenance tags are not a problem, they are there to point out that the article needs further improvement and they may in fact attract other editors who can then help with the specific issues they refer to. Another editor commented here earlier and offered to help you and work on the article, so perhaps you could start by replying to them and asking them to help you understand and resolve the issues? Cheers, Melcous (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to delta Delta Phi Zeta, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. I suspect that there is still a COI issue with this article, and there is definitely a notability issue. There is nothing in the article that claims any notability for this sorority. One source showing that it exists but is under probation, and one source that is the sorority's own webpage. Mere existence is not enough to be notable. Meters (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * so how many sources so I need to make this annoying issue go away. Xmskab (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about the number of sources. The article has to show that the sorority is notable, and those claims must be verifiable with reliable sources. As far as I see the article does not even made any claims that the sorority is notable. Again, mere existence is not enough to be notable. Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CLUB. Meters (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Delta delta phi zeta


A tag has been placed on Delta delta phi zeta, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Naraht (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)