Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrateres

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phrateres[edit]

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

Non-notable sorority. No affiliation with any recognized national sorority accrediting body (i.e. National Panhellenic Conference). Attempts to cobble together evidence of notability through random citations to yearbooks is insufficient for the purpose of WP:GNG, which requires "Significant sources" that "address the subject directly in detail" that is "more than a trivial mention." The fact that it has only 1 active chapter indicates a lack of lasting presence that would indicate notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There are sources right in the article which estabish that this organization meets the GNG. There are a lot of yearbook mentions, it's true, but this from the U of W alumni mag and this from the Arizona Daily Wildcat are enough and are checkable online. The Capitol Times article and the history of Whitman College, which aren't checkable online, and the other Daily Wildcat article cited just add to the notability. This book and this journal article, which don't seem to be cited in the article but certainly ought to be, clinch the case as far as I'm concerned. Again, the one active chapter thing is a red herring. Think of Skull and Bones.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you think that this is equivalent to Skull and Bones? Really? See WP:N, which states that subjects must "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large." Do yearbooks and college student newspapers satisfy that requirement? Really?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem sufficiently reliable to me, and there are books and magazines among them, not merely yearbooks and college papers (although there's nothing wrong with college papers per se). The comparison with Skull and Bones was a reductio ad absurdum directed solely at your claim that the number of chapters relates to notability. It does not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being documented in detail in works such as It's Up to You: Women at UBC in the Early Years and California and Californians. Warden (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2012 (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.