Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Omega Psi Phi chapters


 * 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 issues presented by those arguing for deletion are either not reasons for deletion but cleanup and/or have been rebutted by those wanting to keep the list. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Omega Psi Phi chapters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This and all such lists are violations of WP:NOT. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose:A *clean* list, I'm talking about without "Notorius Nu" (and probably without the links to the chapter websites), doesn't hit any of the subcategories mentioned in WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply here (and given the WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination, I can only guess at an argument that it does). But it seems to me that a notable fraternity's list of chapters at notable educational institutions, complete with annotated information on when those chapters were founded, etc., passes WP:LISTPURP as relevant information in our coverage of the fraternity (and of the universities, for that matter). If this could fit easily into the parent article, then I don't think there'd be any complaint, and it doesn't magically become unencyclopedic when it's WP:SPLIT for size and formatting issues alone. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete If WP:NOT applies, it is most likely WP:NOTLINK. This is a mere re-packaging of links to chapters as can be found on the home fraternity's web site.  The, uh, creatively idiosyncratic "notes" column for some of the chapters further demonstrates non-encyclopedic nature. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you would change to a support if the links and notes were removed?Naraht (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because that would be only 2/3rds of the material to be removed. The chapter listings are already available on the fraternity's web site.  WP is not Yahoo or Google, so those I would suggest also removing those listings.  That leaves less than a stub, so there is no reason to retain the article. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Omega Psi Phi has a list of chapters on their website is only relevant in whether it comes from primary sources (and in this case since this is non-controversial, OK). If Omega Psi Phi were to remove them, so that the information was only available from an archive.org location, that could be used as a primary source and you would be OK with it on Wikipedia???Naraht (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop lobbying me for retention. I have made my opinion clear and given my reasons, which are based in the current state of policy and the current state of the article.  If you think there is a way to "save" the article by improving it, then do so. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's called "discussion". You are free to not respond to his questions and critique of your comments (and the closer will judge the substance of each appropriately), but it's not appropriate to characterize him as "lobbying" you as if he's doing something inappropriate. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me where lobbying is defined as inappropriate and I'll retract my remarks. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Postdlf's points above. I'm inclined to think that the "Notes" column, as presently constituted, could be excised (any genuinely notable material about a particular chapter could be footnoted), but that issue and others about whether the chart should be condensed and/or remerged into the main article can be discussed on the talk page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2013 (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.