Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racial incident

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 WP:SNOW keep. Discussions about content (title, bias, etc.) should be and already are on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racial incident[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attack page about an insignificant incident, meant to smear a historical organization. Not notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page has been renamed, 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident, which sounds even more slanderous.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Racism incident" seems like a reasonable and accurate descriptor, if not a flattering one. If you really have a problem with it then the Talk page for the article is probably a better venue than AFD. Artw (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artw: I did, to no avail so far. The other editors seem very ideologically driven. I think Wikipedia should remain neutral/encyclopedic. I added a comment here because the page for deletion has been renamed; it sounds even more like an attack page IMO.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Renamed in a slanderous manner? A. I undid your undiscussed move; B. The page-name I returned it to was consistent with the cited sources; and C. Please read Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats and stop making accusations like this. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems inappropriate/like original research/an opinion to use that word unless it is a direct quote. See the talkpage. I only added a comment here to let everyone know the title has been changed (for the worse) since I created this AFD. We can discuss this more on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no one is going to think that all members of SAE are racist, which makes it not an attack page Inicholson (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient notability at this time (the story is all of four days old). I have suggested a few sentences in University of Oklahoma. Note that I am an observer and am not otherwise involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current events are often included in Wikipedia. We started writing the MH370 articles 6 hours after it disappeared. I don't think that's enough of a reason to delete it, simply because it's current. We can edit it as more facts come up. AvatarQX (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep An incident that has received national attention and fulfills many Wikipedia notability tenets. An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Already SAE chapters are being investigated nationwide. This incident has ramifications for fraternities at many other universities.--The lorax (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We report lasting impact, we don't anticipate it. We have no idea where this will lead, if anywhere. BTW, if the word "strong" means anything here, please count me as "Strong delete"; if not, it just looks silly. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The story is everywhere in the media and appears to have potential for long term significance. Meanwhile the editing disputes were overwhelming the main articles about OU and SAE. I was intially disposed against having a spinout article about this, but I've changed my mind in light of the continued furor. This article allows us to develop the content about this story in an orderly fashion, and if the story really does disappear in 6 months, we can merge it back in. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Incident has some lasting consequences (closing the chapter of the fraternity, putting increased scrutiny on this and other organisations) and has depth of coverage and a diversity of sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly no lack of sources, and likely to have some lasting consequences. Artw (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not an attack page, and it should not become one. It is also not an insignificant event based on the level of national media coverage it has received and reaction to it on the campus of OU. The article should remain so that the content can develop, similar to the way that 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing was developed over time. FFM784 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainley passes all notability standards.--75 * 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. It's too soon to tell if this has a lasting impact and persistent coverage, but it certainly meets all the other criteria laid out for Wikipedia:Notability (events). Expanding coverage at Sigma Alpha Epsilon would be fine, too. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for sure. This will no doubt add to the effect of the already happening racism discussion in the U.S., it's been in the news for weeks, and it's definitely something that will have an impact of SAE, if not the university itself. I can't see why we'd not keep it. It hardly seems like a hate page, and if anything posted is controversial or biased, we can edit it. It doesn't become polarized until we make it polarized - by that logic, we shouldn't have definitions of Benghazi either. AvatarQX (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wide discussion in thousands of secondary sources across our planet. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and strong keep In all fairness, I personally spent a fair amount of time last evening working on the prose, and making it neutral. We can work on the title, and do additional good faith editing to make it better, but this was clearly a notable event because of the level of media coverage, and the constitutional issues raised by the students expulsion. Strong keep, and based on the !votes so far, we are headed toward a speedy close of this AfD. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.