Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epsilon Nu Tau


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Epsilon Nu Tau

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Highly promotional and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education and
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. 18:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) . AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article continues to be improved even after winning an earlier Deletion prod that was offered, where the vote was to keep it. I fully disagree with the OP's statement that the article is "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic".  It is modeled after a number of acceptable, similar Start-class articles that the Fraternity and Sorority Project continues to support and improve. The rush to delete such random Greek-letter organization articles, without a comprehensive process or rationale is harmful to Wikipedia. We track these societies, which number some 500,000, providing articles for those few who show notability with continued existence for ten years or more, and which have a regional or national presence of at least three chapters. This approach is consistent with major reference sources for this category that pre-date Wikipedia for 135 years, and which after long discussion and consensus building here, we follow. I do not know why the OP didn't alert the F&S Project of the AfD, but I have corrected that omission. Jax MN (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We need secondary source coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found and added a secondary source that provides significant coverage. That should suffice for proof of notability. I also did a quick copy edit that removed some of the content that was copied from their website. It is a member of the Professional Fraternity Association, making it a legitimate organization. I have not looked through campus newspapers, but am confident that more non-fraternity sources can be found based on the locations of its chapters. Rublamb (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. This is why editors should not concentrate on scoring Prods. Especially things like frats and radio stations, most would find, or already have, adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (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.