Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa Sigma


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I am filing this request based solely upon an email sent to OTRS. Please see ticket number 2012070310006953 for additional information.

On behalf of Mitchell Wilson and the Kappa Sigma Fraternity we would like to go with option 2 as people seem to like to publish our fraternity secrets on wikipedia for all to see. The content in question is PRIVELAGED INFORMATION and is meant for Kappa Sigmas ONLY. Tiptoety talk 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not incumbent on Wikipedia to help anyone keep their secrets, and certainly that does not justify deleting an article about a notable topic. Outside the sphere of BLPs, we owe the subject of an article no deference when it comes to their desire for deletion. If the information they claim is privileged can be sourced to a reliable source, then the allegedly privileged information is already out there and can no longer be claimed to be privileged. If it cannot be sourced, then it can be removed for being unsourced. Either way, normal editing practices are the solution. Monty  845  02:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This subject unquestionably meets our notability guidelines. The article is well-sourced and neutral and the nominator hasn't offered any legitimate reasons why this article should be deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the past year at least, sourced info has been repeatedly removed from the article, justified by it being something that is intended as secret and not for public disclosure. This request seems to be another means to that end. Clearly doing so would go against WP:CENSOR: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online." Evil saltine (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just on a side note, the customer was made aware of that in my response to the email. Tiptoety  talk 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep I have two questions... 1) Can this OTRS request be used as a reference that those two words are a fraternity secret? 2) Did they really misspell privilege in the request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 2012-07-07 03:36:16
 * The request came from an unofficial email address claiming to be associated with the fraternity, and yes, the wording was copied directly from the email. Best, Tiptoety  talk 03:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keeping secrets is contrary to the mission of Wikipedia, which is to disseminate information. In any event, information that was published in multiple commercially available books more than a century ago cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a secret. Those who have nominated the article for deletion should be aware of the Streisand Effect. I had never heard of Kappa Sigma before two or three days ago. Now I'm really curious about its early history, the phrase "Kirjath Sepher", and why modern members of any fraternity would go to such lengths to try to stuff an obscure genie that hardly anyone would have noticed back into the bottle. Rivertorch (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The key issue is whether the fraternity is a notable organization and should have an article. The answer to that is yes. I cannot, in good conscience, !vote to delete the article. That said, there's no reason not to subject the full content of the article to the verifiability rules. If something is alleged to be a secret meaning, but no reliable, previously-published source is furnished to verify it, it should be stricken from the article. It may even be reasonably subject to redaction under RD#3 of the revision deletion policy: attempting to "out" the organization's alleged secrets is clearly an attempt to disrupt the article. (If it weren't, we wouldn't be in this AfD.) Finally, I agree with Rivertorch about the Streisand effect. Had the article merely been reverted quietly, we wouldn't know whether the claims had any truth to them or were bogus claims about secrets. The requester has effectively announced to the world that whatever the material in the article was—and I don't feel the need to go peeking to see what exactly it is—it's authentic secrets of the fraternity. (And that raises a curious contradiction: why are we removing material as "secret" if it's been revealed as valid by a member of the organization?) —C.Fred (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, although since Tiptoety notes above that the OTRS request came from an unofficial email address, we can't be sure who has revealed what. As I noted on the talk page, the content at issue has been there for a while and has survived over 90 attempts at removal. I haven't gone through the history with a fine-toothed comb, and it's certainly possible there's been some misbehavior on the part of those advocating the content's inclusion, but the bottom line as I see it is that it meets WP:V with some room to spare. What you say about the full content of the article being subject to WP:V is absolutely correct, of course. At the moment, it's chock full of claims based on primary sources. That's no reason for deletion, of course. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the result of this OTRS request be any different if came from Mitchell Wilson, the executive director of Kappa Sigma. I think we've got enough for WP:V and I can't seem to find anyone on this page who argues that it doesn't make WP:N.Naraht (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can verify that the sender works for Kappa Sig. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was an OTRS request on this two years ago. It was discussed on the talk page at Talk:Kappa Sigma.  Did this latest OTRS request really request deletion of the entire article?  Or is this discussion here because actual deletion and simple editing content out have been conflated? Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was an additional exchange prior to the email request that I copied into the nomination statement. In it they essentially said that they are tired of the continued "vandalism" and that the only solution they see would be to have the entire article deleted. Tiptoety  talk 14:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And how will this deletion really help in the long run, anyway? Those intent on "vandalism" will just recreate the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't answer that question, I am only the messenger. :-) Tiptoety  talk 15:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do they request deletion or do they request deletion and salting? (in whatever terminology, I doubt they know WP:SALT)Naraht (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, one odd thing is that about a year ago, some of the same wikipedians involved in what they call vandalism deliberately kept an additional non-referenced secret *out* of the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Is there a way to keep the page semiprotected for years to prevent constant revert wars? --Enos733 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it would need full protection, not semi. That might be feasible if we can get it cleaned up first, but it's never an ideal solution. I think it would be preferable just to watch it closely and warn those editing against consensus, blocking edit warriors as necessary. Rivertorch (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 15:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 15:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is clearly notable. Deleting due to repeated "vandalism" is never the answer (same for the "secret keeping").Transmissionelement (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Now what?
The only question left on this thread is whether the Speedy Keeps will beat the Keeps (right now it is 4 Keeps and 3 Speedy Keeps). If this were a standardly created RFD rather than one from a OTRS, we'd have closed this days ago. I've started a thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities for the more general question (both Alpha Phi and Phi Gamma Delta also contain information that a number of members of that organization would like to remove). While all three situations are different, a compare and contrast with them (and the protection on each) might be useful.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Further discussion shouldn't hurt anything but I don't see how these articles and the organizations they discuss warrant special treatment or exceptions to our standard policies and practices. WP:V and WP:CENSOR seem to adequately cover these cases. ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 13 July 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.