Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi delta kappa


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Pi delta kappa

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

This one chapter sorority lived for six years before becoming a chapter in a national sorority. Article says "Baird's Manual (1912) gave Pi Delta Kappa an entry between Pi Beta Phi and Sigma Kappa", in order to add Baird's as a source. This is like demonstrating the notability of a company by saying it lies alphabetically between two notable companies in the Thomas Register. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Baird's is a source. What does it say about the organization.?DGG (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That it existed at the time of publication. Baird's attempts to be a complete listing of all fraternities and sororities, and their chapters, so inclusion in it tells us nothing. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pi Delta Kappa was a national sorority, not a one-chapter sorority. Baird's didn't just mention the existence of the sorority, it had a full-page article, not just a listing that "lies between other notable companies."  It lists sororities according to size and prestige, and Pi Delta Kappa was listed among national sororities.  Did anyone trying to get the article deleted even bother checking the references? 68.48.246.145 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chi Omega where a mention of it can be made. TerriersFan (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; as far as I'm concerned pretty much all greeks are non-notable. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're free to hold that view, of course. Personal interest in or apathy to a subject or topic is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article though per WP:APATHY. Whitehorse1 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nomination. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's fairly amazing none of the critics did their homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.246.145 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I think there's been some confusion over the text. When tagged, in its original revision), and currently, the article specified three chapters; rather than one chapter per the deletion proposal. Since the nom opens using this as its basis for the article deletion, the discrepancy is significant. The confusion continues with the claim the article's referencing the group's coverage in Baird's Manual was inserted "in order to add Baird's as a source". It follows with a false analogy of a phone directory. Presumably this was to relate it to notability discussion on negligible listing coverage. (The nominator changed the original text of 'phone directory' diff to Thomas_Register - a directory; Baird's own entry clearly instructs it is neither.) Whitehorse1 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Some evidence of notability. Perhaps a merge and redirect would be appropriate, but that's another discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC) :
 * Note: A friendly notice on this discussion has been included on a related WikiProject talk page. –  Whitehorse1 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Confusion included misinterpreting the organization as a one chapter group, rather than national/regional; and, as others have pointed out, incorrectly holding Bairds information negligible or merely trivial. In any event, editors listed many other sources. I agree the wording quoted by nominator seems awkward. In itself that's not a basis for deletion; copyediting, maybe.
 * Often, articles about a single chapter of a fraternity/sorority have been deleted. (Typically, deletion proposal focuses on promotional style; the chapter/org being too young, lacking third-party, reliable evidence of notability.) Favoring deletion by applying this trend to this AfD discussion is a red herring. The (national - multi-chapter) org. passes the 'Wikipedia notable' sources test over & over. It might be a niche area of study, there might be some prejudice toward it as a field for study (as some sources point out) - none of that impacts notability. – Whitehorse1 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: well-sourced. topic of the article meets notability criteria. &#x21FD; tl;dr version

There seem to have been procedural errors. Now we're here though, we should examine if it's notable and meets other considerations, since 'Notability is not temporary' (per guideline WP:N). Likewise, avoiding repeated nominations through making sure to adequately address strong reasons for non-deletion is just good sense.


 * Notable
 * Much focus, including the claims on the prod template, was impractical - like various Google Tests. For instance, the claims put forward, including the link above, use Google Scholar as somehow proof of non-notability. Really, Google Scholar is not much use in a field either not paper-oriented or less technically-oriented (per WP:GOOGLE guide). Lack of hits on Google web search or others is no definitive test of notability; guidelines reinforce some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none. It can indicate a topic highly specialized, or not generally sourceable via the Internet. An online search is biased towards modern persons, making it often unsuitable for historically notable matters. Like this one.


 * It's long established in the notability guideline notability is not synonymous with "fame", or "importance", but instead, means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." We have reliable verifiable sources that make clear its worthiness to be noted or attract notice. Analyses in secondary sources of the subject matter - of this organization and others like it - prove something we're asked to please consider: 'notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society &hellip; history&hellip; or education'. Advice in WP:ORG that the organization’s longevity, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered, reflects their relevance for consideration. Per WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, notability is determined not by something's quantity of members, but the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. All 3 chapters exist today, important irrespective of Chi Omega status.


 * Sourcing
 * A strong basis exists to hold the way research was approached as inadequate. Policy has said to look for sources first, before AfD, for a long time. This approach to verifiability has been written down since 2003.


 * By consensus, for articles with a narrow scope or about some historical person or thing, fewer references such as one or two mentions in reliable texts usually suffice. From WP:NOEFFORT, short even stub-ish length may mean a subject obscure or difficult to write about, not any 'unsuitability' for Wikipedia. After all, there is no deadline. WP:ORG guideline finds an organization notable if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources &hellip; If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited". Addressing potential lack of depth concerns, multiple reliable (accessible) sources were cited.


 * Plenty are reported in the article, and elsewhere online, and show it's a proven area of active research. A key element is private archives, like these . What is an acceptable source has never, and will never, be defined as 'only those you can pull up with your search terms in Google' or 'any of the books on my shelf', no more than 'my buddy Carl told me the other day' is acceptable. The nom seems to disregard fraternity/sorority periodicals coverage, for example. While at cursory glance cited publications of national fraternities might seem primary source publications (i.e. by organization), they are by completely separate orgs; thus once removed.


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources as a matter of core policy. WP:V. Per policy (WP:SOURCES) "[The] MOST reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; &hellip; journals, and books published by respected publishing houses." (emphasis mine) The article relies on these gold standard sources, enshrined in policy as the most reliable of all: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses, including university textbook publisher Banta; Bairds ones.


 * Demand for super-widespread coverage, perhaps with photographs of the pre-1920s group, is unrealistic. It wasn't until 1919 that American newspapers began to feature photographs routinely ( according to Library of Congress American History & Culture&mdash;American Memory). Before then, newspaper publishers used illustrations based on drawings to depict and comment on events of the day ( ref ). The article specifies recognition by national fraternities, who mentioned it in their respective publications. More generally, these groups feature heavily in the U.S Library of Congress, American Memory project, so can be deemed important. Their illustration show they formed an important part of social/cultural life.


 * Given it's historic, state or major regional news coverage is less easy to access; an Ohio state reference library might have microfiche material; their being readily available to all is not a criterion affecting inclusion. As for the big G's News search engine, their own FAQ reads "many historical archives are still completely offline. Even many newspapers &hellip; that have recent articles or recent archives online haven't digitized articles [pre -]1944". Citing a fruitless search in Google News as indicative of anything here was particularly unhelpful: assuming the founders were aged 18 in 1907, it's unlikely they're around today, making news.


 * Merging
 * Importance, enough information, and enough scope in its own right - not just as Chi Omega-related content, justify it being its own standalone article. Likewise, arbitrarily recommending which article should be the merge target is a risk. Merging such articles - those with standalone potential - should be avoided. We're advised when discussing mergers it's wise to think of the longterm, such as the possibility of an article getting too long. Typically, contrary to policy, merged info. swiftly becomes lost info. Example: Lambda Omega is listed under category defunct orgs; it redirects to Delta Zeta national sorority. I've zero idea what the info was and there's no mention of Lambda Omega in the Delta Zeta article. This goes against policy; whenever we can avoid this, we should.


 * Bias
 * A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. &hellip; not all notable subjects are famous or important. Stacks of evidence (called for by WP:IDONTKNOWIT) show the subject has attracted attention beyond a small community, warranting inclusion. Wikipedia, in recognition it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS), charges community members to avoid furthering bias. Related guideline WP:ORG recognizes often less information and material exists on smaller orgs; that should not create bias against including smaller ones.


 * The argument because a subject is unknown or not well known among segments of readers it should not have an article encourage systemic bias. Evaluating quantity and quality of sources requires accepting notability of some topics is limited to a particular culture. Countries [or eras] where computer use is not so common, have lower rates of reference to equally notable material, so therefore appear (mistakenly) non-notable. Again, deletion is opening the door to computer usage bias. (Unfortunately computers were in scant supply in the early 1900s. Dial-up was slow, too. :p)


 * It is encyclopedic.
 * Reliable sources establish it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. There's a wealth of difference between insignificant and niche. Saying &quot;minor issues are not encyclopedic&quot; is simply not true. It is not unencyclopedic. Detailed obscure, or seemingly obscure, topics may attract more popular interest at a later date; we've objective evidence sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already; we have to remember Wiki is not paper (from Wikipedia:Importance).


 * The argument is whether or not articles add to a readers knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way (WP:DDH). Where an article actually does add to a readers knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way, it should, in keeping with the editing policy, be kept. The deletion process states: "When in doubt, don't delete". – Whitehorse1 22:08, 12 December 2008 (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.