Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Gamma Delta Epsilon Chapter


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Phi Gamma Delta Epsilon Chapter

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

Chapter of a national fraternity. Per, Wikipedia is not a directory.  miranda   05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm very surprised why this even lasted this long. There has been a long precedent of not having Wikipedia articles of local chapters of national organizations. Every single article that has been created for a chapter of a national fraternity has been deleted including an entire project. Regardless of how well this particular article is written, there has been absolutely no exception. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 06:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There has been an exception, although it's more a case of a formerly-independent fraternity that was absorbed by a national. That said, stepping back, the organization notability guidelines state that individual/local chapters of (inter)national organizations are not generally notable. It's possible for certain organizations with some extraordinary history to be notable. While this article is extensive, it doesn't show any such notability. While Epsilon should probably copy this text for use, with attribution, on their chapter website, it is not encyclopedia material. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This particular chapter does have a claim to notability as one of the nation's oldest surviving chapters. Not sure it is enough, but the organization should at least be evaluated on its own merits instead of just "no individual chapters are ever notable" type rationales. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I beg to difer. The "claim" of being one of the oldest chapters of any organization is just that: a "claim". There are several fraternities who claim that they have the oldest chapter. Others claim that they have the oldest continually active chapter of any fraternity. Phi Delta Theta claimed this, so has Phi Kappa Psi. etc. However it can't be proven through third party sources. I have seen previous other articles of other chapters that were written on Wikipedia. Several of them were a lot better written than this one. Some actually even included third party sources as their references, yet none of them survive. Why? Because it would set a precedent that allow chapters to use Wikipedia as their personal webspace provider. "No individual chapters are notable" is a fair and valid rational. As I stated above, there has been no exception to this. What C.Fred is referring to is completely different from what I'm referring to. There have been local/regional fraternities some of which have affiliated or disaffiliated with their national organzations and they have seperate articles. They are not "chapters". They are the actual fraternity. Yet even some of these aren't notable enough (e.g. The William Penn Society. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanket rules are all X are non-notable are a bad idea. Instead each case should be evaluated on its own merits.  It is highly possible that this org fails notability. I am not saying it doesn't.  I am just saying it should be evaluated on its own merits, not blindly deleted. And yes, I am quite sure there are some local fraternity chapters that are notable.  It would be quite absurd to say that no local chapter anywhere has done anything notable. Certainly the notable ones are the rare exception, but that doesn't mean there are zero. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. However, this issue of individual chapters has been debated over and over again ad nauseum especially in the Wikipedia fraternity and sorority project which this article seems to fall under the scope of. The consensus was no individual chapters should have a seperate article and something users in the project have generally agreed to. I believe this issue had been settled. Past AfD discussions of individual chapters have been evaluated on their own merits and every article has been subsequently deleted citing lack of third party sources, pov etc. Moreover, the notablity in regards to individual chapters is highly subjective. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree because I don't believe this article should've ever survived the prod and I don't believe that in this case a blanket rule is a bad idea citing precedent. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 02:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - local chapters require decent secondary sources to establish notability and this fails that test. TerriersFan (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:31, 30 August 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.