Jump to content

Talk:Tau Alpha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability problem

[edit]

I have restored the notability flag after someone deleted it. Our guide for notability of organizations is at WP:NORG, and this article does not currently match the standard there. Yes, I know that the Frat project has made up its own list of notability guidelines, but those guidelines do not look to sit well with the larger project. (The idea that a fraternity should be considered notable if its existed for 10 years and has a website would seem ludicrous applied to anything else.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler Feel free to bring that fact up at the WP. I'm on there and that combination does seem like it would be unreasonable. Additionally, the WP is *quite* aware that getting info on the Philippine F&S is *Much* more difficult. I consider myself somewhat of an inclusionist, but have voted to delete pages for *several* groups in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought the general concern with the WP-generated notability criteria up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist#Standards_for_WP:N_(Notability), which is both the most recent thread on that page and a discussion that was last posted to over 2.5 years ago, so I'm not expecting to make much motion there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation

[edit]

Given that we are basically where we were before...NatGertler

Naraht (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, reference 2 is not a list of the dozen most notable fraternities in the nation, at least not by its own descriptor: "There are 14 fraternities in the Dillman campus. We'll take a look at some of them." Plus, a single paragraph would seem to fall short of "significant coverage", as called for at WP:ORGCRIT. So yes, I'd say that that doesn't contribute to notability.
  • The presentation article has about a paragraphs worth of material on the fraternity, if a bit scattered in the article. So again, I don't consider that "significant coverage".
  • The scandal coverage says little about the fraternity; it says things about certain people identified as members of the fraternity, but even that adds up to little.
  • The political endorsement article is a little better than some of the above. However, the bulk of the section regarding Tau Alpha is a quote from them, particularly on other matters, than on Tau Alpha itself.
  • The university page, which looks like text written by the fraternity itself, is not any indicator of notability. It's part of a catalog of the organizations that exist on campus; the school itself is an involved source, not a third-party source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies on the first, I should have said "the most notable University in the Philippines". I would agree not the entire article, going back to WP:Notability which WP:NORG builds on, it says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That applies here. Similarly for the presentation. Naraht (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it doesn't have to be the main topic of the source material. A chapter on TA in a book about fraternities would be significant coverage. A paragraph's worth in an article on something else isn't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask where that is in Policy?Naraht (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" is not specifically defined in.policy, but practice shows that it should be more significant than a paragraph. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb: I see that you have deleted the notability tag, saying that existing sources are sufficient. WP:ORGCRIT calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you point to which sources used in the article satisfy that? At the moment, I'm seeing references 1 and 4 being not third-party, reference 2 has a single paragraph on the group, reference 3 has a single sentence mentioning the group, references 5 and 6 are dead links, and going to the archives, 5 has a single mention, 6 has the same mention and both look like self-provided biographical information, 7 has no mention of the group, 8 is a five sentence announcement, and 9 is a dead link that [https://web.archive.org/web/20231012000641/https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/11/21/14/obituary-vicente-paterno in archive proves to be an autobio piece that doesn't mention the group. So I'm seeing no significant coverage currently used in the aritcle. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with @Naraht about the sources. I get that sources could be better and have added some more, but find it bases the threshold needed. Rublamb (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you agreeing with Naraht about? The ones he listed above, which aren't in the article? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk complaint

[edit]

A new user has repeatedly tried to insert negative claims about tau alpha's boardwalk with a self-published YouTube video as a source. This is not what we would consider a reliable source, nor a sufficient source for showing that this matter is important in the discussion of the fraternity. Said editors should try to find consensus on this talk page before reinserting. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look into the questionable source but found and added content cited to the unversity's website, which is reliable. Rublamb (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tau_Alpha&oldid=1248535271"