Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lambda Upsilon Lambda chapters

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. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lambda Upsilon Lambda chapters

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While Lambda Upsilon Lambda in itself is notable, there is no reason to have a list of all non-notable chapters of this group, we are not a directory. Fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that you are misreading WP:LISTN. I believe the key sentence here is "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". As an additional comment, although "Other things exist" is certainly not a reason, the article is not particularly unique, Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society has over 100 articles. Naraht (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Having a category of 100+ articles which may or may not have the same problems has no bearing on the notability or acceptability of this one. WE often have cases were some possible articles are acceptable, and other similar ones are not because there is a difference in available sources, in notability of individual entries, in ... While the organisation is notable, the "group" of chapters itself doesn't seem to have received a lot of attention. As a comparison (with the flaws every such comparison has): McDonalds is obviously notable, but a list of all McDonalds restaurants would not be accepted (even though most of them will be verifiable from independent sourcing, the typical "McDo opens in our town" kinda article). Fram (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Which is why the statement about the category was parenthetical rather than part of my reason for a keep.Naraht (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article for Lambda Upsilon Lambda would be too long if this was included in it. Today an editor decided to erase it from the main article [1] and then create a new article to hold that information. Do other such things have their own articles? Do they list all their chapters in their articles? Articles for businesses and organizations don't list every location they have. Dream Focus 15:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it appears that the editor (I believe the first part as an IP) added the chapters over the last couple of weeks and then split it off. However, IMO, the decision would have been equal from a Wikipedia standpoint if the chapter list had been there for a year or for 10 minutes, it is large enough that it should have its own article.Naraht (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Per reasons stated by Naraht. It is common for Greek organizations to have list articles for their chapters, LUL is also one of the biggest Latino fraternities in the country and is continuously expanding throughout the nation. This list article would have eventually been required either way, as was the case for the Divine 9 fraternities, and Lambda Sigma Upsilon. DovahDuck (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CSC explicitly enumerates collections of not individually notable items as a policy-based reason for lists. This sufficiently answers the single reason for deletion advanced by the nominator; please ping me if any others are raised and need commentary. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the aim of list articles was to be haphazard and incomplete, with only singularly notable standalone representatives listed, as Fram seems to prefer, the value of Wikipedia as a resource would be far reduced. Instead, it would become an annoyance to readers, and train casual users not to trust Wikipedia as a comprehensive source. Perhaps that is not Fram's aim, but that would be the result. We're not going to run out of server space. I too think Fram misunderstands the meaning of WP:LISTN. Jax MN (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and the fact that Wikipedia isn't a directory. Also, none of these are blue linked, there's zero evidence that they ever will be, and the article doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose in the meantime. Half of these aren't even active. In the meantime there's zero reason the chapters that are clearly notable, which I doubt are that many since most of them are closed, can't just be mentioned in the main Lambda Upsilon Lambda article. Outside of that all the keep votes seem to come down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT, or are attempts to right great wrongs (per the person that voted keep partly because this is a Latino fraternity). None of which are valid keep reasons. I'm happy to change my vote to keep if someone can come up with a legitimate one though and no, I don't think that includes the whole "individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" thing as it's a slippery slope argument that doesn't apply here IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a few exceptions, chapters *shouldn't* be blue linked. The number of fraternity/sorority chapters with a page is *very* small, I remember (maybe misremembering) one that was supposedly the oldest fraternity west of the Mississippi before it joined the National. I've started AFDs on pages about specific chapters of Nationals myself.

As for listing them as part of the Lambda Upsilon Lambda article, that is where it was, but it represented a perhaps unreasonably large part of that article. If you feel that they would belong there, could you indicate that you find Merging back into the Lambda Upsilon Lambda preferred?Naraht (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what your point is about the blue links or how it relates to this. Can you perhaps elaborate? Re: merging, I don't think a merge is necessary when the content to be saved is extremely small and can just be copied over to the other article without any hassle being involved. Also, there isn't really any edit history worth saving. So I see zero reason to merge this compared to just deleting it. In the meantime I don't think it will represent an unreasonably large part of the Lambda Upsilon Lambda as long as it isn't completely indiscriminate. That's something that should be worked out on the articles talk page though, but more generally I don't think it is good practice or follows the guidelines to just indiscriminately include everything you can in a list, split it off from the main article, and then say it can't be up-merged or whatever because it includes everything under the sun. No list can or should be all encompassing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, you first mentioned blue links. Our standard practice for these lists of chapters has a blue link for the school, and for the location (sometimes both city and state/province). This is our common syntax throughout all these articles, and I agree there is still work to do on ΛΥΛ. Some of us more veteran editors step in after a page like this is made, and we improve the formatting to meet our Project standard templates. On the separate issue raised, I know of perhaps a dozen individual chapters that have their own WP articles, often because they are historically-significant locals, or their buildings are on the historical register, or because of some infamy. As to the myriad of other chapters noted on these list pages, sometimes a reference points to a university's portal for them, to verify existence, but we routinely delete chapter-owned websites as references for chapters, because these so often go bad and because WP isn't a directory. These steps all show adherence to general WP policies. Jax MN (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jax MN, thanks for the comment. I'm aware of what the practice with blue links is in general. I just wasn't sure if Naraht saying chapters shouldn't be blue linked was a pro or con against keeping the list based on the fact that there are no blue links. Personally, I don't think it should either not be a factor or at least one for why the article isn't notable. Since obviously the main draw of list articles is to act as navigation aids. I don't think locations of organizations are inherently notable either. So there should be more to creating lists of them then whatever the keep arguments being here amount to, which isn't much. IMO the fact that only a few individual chapters have articles just supports that. In the meantime, I'd have zero problem with a list where some are blue linked, some not, and the ones that aren't being linked to reliable, independent sources, but I doubt that will ever be the case here or really with other similar lists. I don't think they should get a special pass from the notability guidelines as a group just because none of them will ever be notable either. Otherwise, we could just as easily make lists of every fast food chains local restaurants for instance, which I'm sure everyone here would agree we shouldn't do. Generally, "none of these are individually notable. So we should have a list for them" just seems like a weird take to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2022 (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.