Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Phi Epsilon (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Note that earlier AfDs were about a different subject, this is the first AfD for this organisation.

Alpha Phi Epsilon


Other than a three sentence description of this fraternity on the Ursinus College site, I can't find a single reliable source that discusses it. This article was previously deleted for non-notability and still fails WP:GNG. Gobōnobō + c 20:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Placing this here from where I had posted it before, seeing as it was not in the talk section. While I can understand the policy for neutral points of view when writing, and can certainly respect it as well, I find some fault in considering that a major reason for the deletion of this page. First of all, this page is written about a local, secret fraternity. While not secret in the sense that no one knows it exists, it is secret in the nature of its activities and history. This page was designed in order to be an informative page about Alpha Phi Epsilon, and without people outside of the fraternity necessarily knowing the history in a complete and factual way, it would be a disservice to the fraternity, and to Wikipedia as well as anyone reading the article, if it was written by someone with a lack of knowledge about the subject. Secondly, the nature in which the article itself is written is purely informative. If there was information that was not purely written about the fraternity that was factual and informative in nature, and instead purely braggadocious in order to hype up the fraternity (for example "this is the best fraternity on campus!" [citation needed]) then I could understand. Information like the fact that some recent fraternity members have gone on to higher institutions, like PCOM, surely does give the fraternity and this page a "boost" in a way of reputation and standing among other fraternities, but it is not just some random opinion. That is an actual fact about the fraternity and its members that are now alumni. Thirdly, previous incarnations of this page were apparently deleted because they did not provide accurate resources in order to verify information on the page (from what I have gathered from the other talk pages). I have added in multiple sources, six I believe (for now), to verify information written. This is honestly more that I have seen on some other pages of which no issue is taken with, including other fraternity and sorority pages on Wikipedia (even for Ursinus College). I believe that it is only fair that this page is allowed to be kept, if not forever, for at least a period of time to allow this page to be improved (as it was through previous talk pages about the page). Therefore, for the time being, I have removed the proposed deletion notice. Previously, this page was kept for 3 years without any real improvements and I believe that some time is needed in order to make this a proper Wikipedia article. Right now, the major source for this article is under construction of its website and is due to be completed, at its very latest, by mid May. The page should at least be kept for this long. Information will be taken into consideration as it is provided and suggestions will be accepted into the page as verified. Samueltalerico (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Sorry, but the mere fact that it exists is not good enough.  The fact that other stuff exists is also a poor argument to keep this article.  If there are other articles in even worse condition, they should be nominated, too.  Adding more primary sources will not help to establish notability; instead, you should work to find coverage in newspapers, magazines, books, and other secondary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you would say that finding news articles, and the like, which report on things that have happened including the fraternity and it's members would then be considered secondary articles, and that this would therefore help the page be kept? You have to remember that this page was literally just created again without looking back at past incarnations. Wanting to quickly delete it without proper opportunity to improve the page itself seems somewhat unwarranted. Samueltalerico (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I believe that sources should precede articles. If the topic is notable, it's not difficult to add four or five citations when the article is first created.  But, yes, newspaper articles about the organization itself would be enough to keep it.  However, remember that they must be in depth (no trivial mentions or routine coverage), and it must be reliably published (no press releases).  See WP:42 for a brief overview in plain language.  The deletion discussion usually lasts for seven days, but it can go longer when there's no clear consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is actually the first AfD for this organisation, the other AfDs were about "Alpha Phi Epsilon Inter-University Collegiate Service Fraternity and Sorority" in the Philippines. So it has not existed before. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Big shortage of coverage by secondary sources independent of the subject, probably doesn't meet GNG. Appear to be some problems with neutrality as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadblade (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 January 2014 (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.