Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Beta Phi

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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Beta Phi

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

Non-notable fraternity - single branch in a single university, founded in 2008. A very similar AfD occurred for another fraternity several years ago and the result was delete. Though it isn't binding WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities has has this working draft of notability standards, which I believe this fails. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although Omega Theta Alpha was deleted, Zeta Chi Phi is an article still standing and does not list any references and it is a sorority with one chapter as well. Cannot base deletion on Omega Theta Alpha.It has 2 chapters, one graduate and one undergraduate. The undergraduate chapter has students from York university and the University of Ottawa. The graduate chapter contains women from cities in Quebec such as Montreal, Gatineau, Hull and the Ontario sisters are all from the GTA representing the University of Ottawa, York University and l'Université de Montréal . This year Sigma plans to expand their undergraduate chapter and recruit from universities in the GTA and in Montreal. It will soon gain notoriety once it finalizes its expansion. It just recently became incorporated as well.--Rbruc022 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that similar arguments to that AfD apply here also. Furthermore, other stuff exists is not a valid argument. BethNaught (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, have failed to find any references in reliable sources, and it appears the only Google hits are posts on social networks by the group itself. Also concur that it fails said draft policy. BethNaught (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I am the creator and that it is also the first predominantly black sorority in Canada. The other predominantly black greek lettered organizations can mainly be found in the US, with the exception of omega psi phi at Carleton university, Sigma Beta Phi is the first of it's kind to create chapters in Canada.Rbruc022 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: above user, Rbruc022, is article creator. BethNaught (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Being the first predominantly Black sorority in Canada is notable. The article is well written too. However, wikipedia frowns on bare URL's for your sources, so you'll need to fix that. Let me know if you need help. It may also help establish notability if you have published sources. So far the sources are not optimal. You might contact a local paper and ask if they'd like to do a story on your efforts to create the first predominantly Black sorority in Canada. :-) Bali88 (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing on behalf of the Sorority, so I am still missing some information, I believe that they have more reliable sources that I might not know about. I will contact the Graduate Chapter's executive board to see if they can come in and add what they need to. Thank you for the help, I am still learning how to work this whole thing out, I will try to add more sources this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbruc022 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. I see a list of officers, and nothing in which the world at large has an interest. To quote from the article, "This page seeks to expand information on the Sorority as well as Greek Life in Canada." So the page is also a WP:OR problem. I looked at one of the supposed references, the Pepsi refresh project, and not only is it a press release, the word "Sigma" does not appear on the page. There are also WP:Copyvio concerns, for example, the sentence "The primary goal is to promote female empowerment and successes both individually and collectively." is sourced to [1], which has the exact same sentence except that the first word is "Our". The use of the pronoun "our" indicates that the weebly source is not independent, and also indicates COI in our article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the original link (www.refresheverything.ca/thestepupprogram) which would have listed the sorority as well as details to the program had expired due to the fact the contest have been over for some time now. I listed an alternate link which gave detail to the Pepsi Refresh Challenge.Rbruc022 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio would be easy enough to fix and the coi is not by itself a fatal flaw. The problem IMO is that there is no material in which the world at large has an interest. Like a previous editor mentioned, you might try to get your regional newspaper to write an article. But even if they do, it is only one source. WP:Alternative outlets has some more options. Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if the article does get deleted, don't get discouraged. Stick it in your sandbox. Work on finding resources. Work on polishing the article. And try again later when there are a couple more chapters. :-)Bali88 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rbruc022: It's good that you are working to improve the article and such, but one thing to keep in mind is that it would be inappropriate to delete the article because it's not good, unless it were really not good (i.e. no salvagable material), per the policy on surmountable problems. This is being considered for deletion primarily because it does not seem like it is notable. Just because it's not notable now (as I believe it is not) doesn't mean it won't be notable in the future, and as Unscintillating said, just because it isn't published on Wikipedia doesn't mean it can't be published anywhere. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - if a good source can be found (and added) that documents this was the first minority sosority in Canada. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious COI from article creator and primary editor, and the entire piece reads like a marketing flyer. No independent, reliable, sources. I looked at the references. They are all either internal, or local. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2014 (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.