Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African American Greek & Fraternal Organizations

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The result was Withdrawn by Nom (non admin close). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American Greek & Fraternal Organizations[edit]

Unsourced information. Possibly a page made by banned user. A check user case is underway to see if second theory is true. However, the page should be deleted due to 1.) A lack of reliable sources. 2.) Original research. miranda 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this request, since the page will be deleted via CSD 5. miranda 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was certain that there was a category for historically black fraternities and sororities, and was surprised that there isn't. Wikipedia doesn't even have a category for "fraternities" or "sororities", perhaps out of some misplaced sense of political correctness. Thus, if one one looks at Kappa Alpha Psi or Alpha Phi Alpha, the categories are limited to "United States student societies" (the PC term, apparently). If the problem is a lack of reliable sources, there are lots and lots of sources to look at. It's a valid subject, it's irrelevant whether it was created by a (shudder!) "banned user". Mandsford (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one. It is called NPHC. Oh and by the way, banned users aren't allowed to edit here. miranda 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omigod! Shoes. Let's get some shoes. Mandsford (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The banned user comment is totally irrelevant; just because they can't edit anymore doesn't mean that everything they did has to be rooted out. Anyway, that aside, the content of the article seems to be able to be sourced, so there shouldn't be any problem. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be easily sourceable, and a list seems the ideal way to present the information. The issue of whether a banned user started it is a red herring. Aleta ^Sing 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Actually, the banned user issue is not a red herring. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion...Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users." Additionally, "It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-banned}} to mark such a page." If the author is a banned user, the article meets the criteria for deletion.-RoBoTam^ice 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be completely unconstructive if other editors have worked on a page and it meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the point about the policy, but surely it is more important whether it is a useful article. If it is useful, it is counter-productive to delete it just because the originator was not supposed to be editing here any more. I think this is a useful article, and think the discussion about the creator is less relevant than that. Aleta ^Sing 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 showed that the creator of the article was not related to any banned user. [1] 150.210.176.106 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire nomination was premised on a CSD 5 that proved not to be the case, I think the discussion needs to be closed. I suggest that the nominator attempt to maintain a more civil attitude in the future. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:A checkuser can't "prove" or "show" that someone is not a sock, although it can prove "All the accounts are editing from different locations and ISPs in the same large city. (Even GomabWork; although whois says "S......", the name of the server via RDNS gives a clue to a different location.) That's as far as the technical evidence goes." Was miranda somehow uncivil to one of you by requesting to delete what she believes to be edits from a sockpuppet?-RoBoTam^ice 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. I just happened upon this AfD in the list, and have no connection (positive or negative) with the article or any of the editors in question beyond giving my opinion here. (Of course, this question probably wasn't directed at me, but just to clarify...) Aleta ^Sing 14:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is useful, the information should be easy to source, and the checkuser showed that the creator of the article had no connection to a banned user. I see no reason why the article should be deleted. —Mears man (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then the article could be deleted and redone with sourced material that complies with wiki standards and policy. If GomabWork is proved a sock (which is likely--sorry MKF, you know I have nothing personal against you), the article created by a banned user gets deleted anyway, even if some of us think it is a great article. Wiki is pretty clear on this, and that situation is different than the situation where someone creates an article and is THEN banned.-RoBoTam^ice 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the technical evidence isn't supporting, I'm not sure why you're keeping with pushing the fact that you think he is. It's all well and good that you think he is, but it doesn't seem as though it's going to be proved. matt91486 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your response. It is not a matter of pushing anything. you stated that "the banned user comment is totally irrelevant; just because they can't edit anymore doesn't mean that everything they did has to be rooted out." Others agreed with you. I simply pointed out that that was incorrect, and explained why (per Wikipolicy, not my own opinion). I also suggested that if the article is worth saving, it should be re-done with proper sources. I welcome you to do so (as you believe the article should be kept).-RoBoTam^ice 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough; when I first posted the comment, I assumed that it was written by a user who was now banned and read the initial nomination differently. You are correct in pointing out the policy, but I believe the key here would be any edits may be deleted or removed. Not automatically. Generally speaking, I think I disagree with the policy, but that's obviously a separate issue.\ matt91486 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (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.