Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fraternity and sorority mottos


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

List of fraternity and sorority mottos

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT: an arbitrary list. Unreferenced. Unnecessary: information easily found from "list of fraternities and sororo]ities. - Altenmann >t 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator states that this is "information easily found from 'list of fraternities and sororities'", which, if so, would be a good reason for a delete. Perhaps I'm looking at a different list than the nominator is, but when I look at List of fraternities and sororities (which redirects), I don't see anything there about mottoes.  And in searching a motto at random, I don't find it.  If you're saying that this duplicates something that be "easily found" somewhere else, tell us where and I'll join in saying delete.  As for the rest of the nomination, I agree that it's unreferenced, but it easily could be referenced. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If information is absent in the fraternity page, then either the page sucks or the motto is dubious. Forgive my poor English and brain; I intended to say "information should be easily found in...". At the moment we cannot even spread these mottos into the fraternity articles, because the list is unreferenced. - Altenmann >t 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the various sororities or fraternities mentioned, almost all of which have their own pages. Mottoes in and of themselves are not notable; it is the organizations which are notable. (The post-merge redirect should logically be to List of social fraternities and sororities.) Cnilep (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no can do. How you can merge unreferenced stuff? Most of the article was created by numerous anons; we cannot even find authors to ask for verification. - Altenmann >t 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT. This list is indiscriminate and new sororities/fraternaties can be endless. Listcruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same sense that a list of Presidents of the United States can be endless, I suppose. Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable  Wikipedia  subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. Most of the fraternities &c here are notable  with WP articles; others can be removed. Every bit of it should be easily verifiable, and probably is already cited in the articles on the organizations . DGG (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an argument. I can think of myriads of lists about notable sublects: List of sons of American Presidents, List of middle names of Nobel Prize winners..... - Altenmann >t 16:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no references. Where is all this information coming from? A large quantity of the fraternities or sororities for which the mottoes are listed, are very likely not notable. There may be some of them which are, but they are probably already included in an article elsewhere, and with them, the mottoes correspondent to them. For those mottoes for which the fraternities or sororities are indeed worthy of an article, I change my 'vote' to a merge, but to the article itself, it remains a delete. -- 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate collection of information or unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Leave the mottos on the respective articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2009 (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.