Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National APIDA Panhellenic Association

National APIDA Panhellenic Association

[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities continues the work of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities as the foremost compendium on the subject. This resource currently highlights this article's subject. Its existence as an umbrella organizations for Cultural interest fraternities and sororities that serve Asian American students and alumni. Its organizational peers include the National Panhellenic Conference, North American Interfraternity Conference, National Pan-Hellenic Council, National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, and National Multicultural Greek Council; the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, the premier professional association for professionals working with college fraternities and sororities, recognizes it as such. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Adding to coverage/notability: Additional hits can be found under the Association's previous name, National APIA Panhellenic Association. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly you will have to find significant coverage of the National APIDA Panhellenic Association and its activities before it even begins to meet Wikipedia's notability standards for organizations. All the article seems to say is, "We worked hard to put this together." There is no claim of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, Bejnar, I have just added several references to journals and the independent Fraternity and Sorority Archive at the University of Illinois, where the NAPA group (~APIDA) is profiled in a section of its own. While earnest and valid, and offered in good faith, I agree that the article had been thinly sourced. I believe my edits to this page should suffice to prove notability. This trade organization is on similar footing to a half dozen other active, valid groupings of national organizations. Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is another example of a useful article by a new or unfamiliar Wikipedian that is being attacked with an unnecessary AfD PROD. The reasonable course of action ought to have been to improve the article. I have now done this, and others ought to continue to do so. The article now meets any reasonable notability review. Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the big picture, I don't like this tactic of littering WP with AfD PRODs as a way to spark emergency page cleanup; a disinterested observer might view this as harassment. Other writers have long claimed that such AfD PRODs are lazy (versus making the effort to improve articles). Analyzing how this could have been a good faith edit instead of bad faith, it appears this is the method Onel5969 chose to spur edits. I wrote an article on Wooster's Greeks that had well over 100 citations, I thought they were joking, but after I showed clear notability with these many citations, Onel5969 added a "needs further citations" template at the top of that well-referenced page! Still, they seem to be a veteran editor whose skills might be used more effectively. Rather than this ongoing campaign to delete fraternity and sorority articles, (as if we only had room for a few of the largest), my advice to Onel5969 is to fix these articles, offer creative and helpful suggestions for the many newbies that are turned off by aggressive deletion tactics, and to grow the WP team. We have plenty of space; deletion shouldn't be the first impulse. Jax MN (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my comments above; it was pointed out to me I had neglected to vote. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]