Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts Royale Brotherhood


 * 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. The vandalism does not matter, but the lack of published sources makes the article fail WP:GNG and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Scouts Royale Brotherhood

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has been tagged for notability and other concerns for some time. I have drawn attention to these on the talk page, but in spite of 26 edits so far this month, none of them have addressed these concerns. There are no independent sources. It does not seem that this article can meet our notability guidelines. Let us see whether an AfD proposal can lead to improvement or, if not, to deletion. Bduke   (Discussion)  20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Has been tagged since June 2009 for having no references, has been extensively edited by coi editors and clearly NOT notable.  Teapot  george Talk  20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral I think it's possible this could be notable, but given those editing it haven't added one single ref in that time, that's a problem. — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per nom, nobody involved seems to care enough to clean this turkey up, so it's not that notable.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Very Strong Delete-despite Naraht's laudable and valiant efforts, the nn IP edits keep rolling in faster than anyone should waste their time dealing with every day. If those unregistered users ignore the stack of warnings at the top of this crapmagnet even during this discussion, it will never get better.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Having the vandals determine whether it gets kept implies that they own it. If this vandalism was to a Featured Article, would you want it deleted?Naraht (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a specious argument. If this was a Featured Article, that would mean it was notable and we wouldn't be having this AfD at all. Since it's not and we are, yes I do.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I concur. Vandalism and POV edits on the article can be dealth with through watchlisting the article, editting, or reverting matrial, and in exceptional cases, protecting the page.  Whether the article is kept or deleted really boils down to reliable sourcing.  The degree of vandalism it attracts is not relevant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For lack of better description, I'm probably the closest thing to an experienced editor who has any connection at all with this article. This article suffers from the same issues that most of the Philippine Fraternity articles suffer from. Unregistered users who don't really understand Wikipedia and are only making changes with what they know. For various reasons including the lack of National Offices and official web pages, which though primary, would at least be stable, pulling out references is difficult. Also, Google news archive which can be a good source for USA fraternities notability is almost useless for this. Recently I went through and did compare their early chapters to Alpha Phi Omega sorting out the ones that are named the same deliberately or not. I'll try to take a crack at salvaging the article over the next week or so. I know it doesn't count as a but I'd like to try.Naraht (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia's notability criteria are based on the existence of significant coverage in third party reliable sources. If there are no such third party reliable sources then by Wikipedia's standards the subject is not notable, no matter what the reason for the lack of such sources. To say (in effect) "we should keep this article because, even though there are no third party reliable sources, there would be if only there were an "official" web site for the subject, or if only Google news archive were to provide sources" is to miss the point. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there were none, I said that it was difficult. There have been references added since the AFD was proposed.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to put in a pre-emptive request for the contents in a personal page if it does get deleted.Naraht (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What for? If you are asking for temporary userfication in order to be able to make good the defects of the article, then that may be OK, if there is a reasonable prospect of being able to do so: i.e. if there are grounds for believing that the missing sources do exist somewhere. If, however, you mean that you want to keep a copy of the article in userspace to avoid deletion then the answer is "no". See WP:FAKEARTICLE. You have not indicated what your purpose is. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite familiar with it. However, I think working on it without IP vandalism and the massive changes by Nurkahn Tampakan might be smoother if it is deleted.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. the best I could find was passing mentions like this. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2010 (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.