Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraternal benefit society


 * 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   speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the deletion request. NN has said she agrees to merge it, and I'll help her.  DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fraternal benefit society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I accepted this AfC, but am having second thoughts. Checking some of the content, I found 2 sections to be copyvio from http://fraternalalliance.org/ fand removed them. The rest of it reads similarly promotional. I taker note of another less than satisfactory article covering more or less the same ground from a very different viewpoint Benefit society. Others have noticed Mutual organization,   I do not think has significant overlaps, though the types of organizations are closely related. The author himself noticed Friendly society. The editor noticed the page does not seem to appear on Google, and wondered on my talk p. "what more I need to do to ensure it's publication and availability on Internet searches.". From all of this, I rather think the purpose of the page is promotional for Friendly alliance. I'm not sure what course to pursue. I recognize I'm not necessarily asking for deletion, though in view of the parts that were copyvio, a delete and redirect might be the simplest solution.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello DGG,

I'm Nina, the author of the article of the Fraternal Benefit Society page. I appreciate your input and would like to clear up any confusion regarding the article. Can you identify the sections that you found were copyright violations? I'm more than happy to correct any issues that would prevent the page's publication. As you may have read in my "talks" with reviewer MatthewVanitas (who is very helpful), I wrote the article because when I did a search for Fraternal Benefit Societies, I was redirected to Mutual Organizations, which is very broad and not indicative of FSBs. Trying to squeeze in a section on that page, which is already large and broad, would only further confuse what FSBs are. I am a member of a Fraternal Benefit Society (not a hired employee) and did not write it for promotional purposes, but simply to get the message out there that FSBs are still around and still relevant today when most people have misconceptions about what they are and what they do. But I am also a journalist and do have considerable writing and research experience in writing objective articles. If you prefer that I edit an existing page, I would choose the "Benefit Society" page, but I need your clear direction here that this is what you want. Also, does the author of the Benefit Society page have the option of rejecting my additions? My apologies--I am new to Wiki and learning your process.

Best,

Nina Ninalill (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) the copyvio content is already removed; I removed it in the edits  and . If there is other copyvio, and there may be, I did not find it.
 * 2) I agree completely that Mutual organization is a considerably different topic, and although the article was initially  not accepted because it duplicated that, I thought that not a valid reason. But I carelessly had not at the time noticed the other   article, which are closer to the same topic as the present article. If I had seen it, I would not have accepted the article from AfC.
 * 3) the page copied was that of an organized that seems to be in large part devoted to advocacy to keep the federal tax exemption of these organizations. That's what gave me the impression of promotionalism, but this may have been unfair--it may just have been used because it was convenient,
 * 4) nobody owns an article. I would expect the principal editor of a article considered for merging to have an opinion about it if still around. (Sometimes the question is disputed only because the people principally responsible for the two articles strongly prefer their own titles, but I doubt that will be an obstacle here.) My own rule is, better one strong article than 2 weak ones. I'd be very willing to withdraw the article   if someone will undertake the merge.  DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 28 November 2012 (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.