Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trojan Knights


 * 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. Seraphim &hearts;  01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Trojan Knights

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

not notable (except among those affiliated with USC); advertisement for the organization written by someone affiliated with the organization...can't be more blatant than that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nomination; if one removes Trojan Knights from the USC template, this article isn't referenced by anything. This is certainly written by an insider. Timneu22 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit. Author's disclosure: I am affiliated with the subject, and so concerns about article's objectivity are merited and I would welcome third party editing of my content. Wrote the article after a previous article not written by an insider was removed for lack of citations. The organization is referenced in numerous media however, and does merit inclusion on wikipedia. Again, I welcome other users to edit the content provided. The article is in no way intended as advertisement, but merely as information. If school papers, student organizations and other local fraternities meet notability requirements, not to mention the USC Helenes, there is no reason the article should not exist. USCHistory (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It clearly should, however look to editing your own here to be more neutral tone. Adding a few sources would help. That was quick! I've added a few clarify tags, add more sourcing from the bits I cite below and this should be less traumatic. -- Banj e  b oi   01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, you can site the groups website as well, writing "acording to the groups website they ____" is fine as long as the claims aren't outlandish and are self-referential as they are considered experts on themselves. -- Banj e  b oi   02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help and input, they're very much appreciated! I'll certainly continue to work on cleaning it up. USCHistory (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, you do need to change 24 hours to something else like night and day or all night per our manual of style. -- Banj e  b oi   03:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep And clean-up. Here's a couple of book mentions; a few dozen LA Times articles, over 100 ghits from the university itself. Clearly a notable enough organization and clearly reliable sources exist. The rest remain regular editing which is outside the need of deletion. -- Banj e  b oi   01:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Banjeboi. Appear to meet GNG. No objection if a good merge target can be found, but I don't know where would make sense. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient WP:RS exist for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. Double Blue  (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DoubleBlue. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 04:30, 2 January 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.