Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Lambda

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. As noted, evidence that the organization exists is not enough to justify an article. I'll not salt yet but if it is recreated without some independent reliable sources it's a prime candidate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Absolutely no independent sources, and article keeps getting over-written by a version with no sources. Appears to fail all appropriate notability guidelines, and just an attempt to promote. KylieTastic (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've worked on pages for a lot of Greek Letter Organizations including the Philippines and I've come up empty. not even any google hit on the University of the East website: ue.edu.ph.Naraht (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete Prior to this discussion, the page "Delta Lambda" was up and running fine without much prior or third party information available. Through my own means I was able to contact a benefactor of Delta Lambda in the Philippines that wished I carried on the baton here in the United States. This was months ago. The organization is legitimate and is now a legitimate organization in the United States. I assure you, this is a newly established organization, but not one that shouldn't be given a chance to remain on wikipedia. The page prior to this was far less developed, with far less sources than beforehand, and it would be a shame to see this page deleted in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beexj (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Beexj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Naraht Don't Delete this Page I can vouch for the legitimacy of this organization as I had a colleague in my law firm in NYC that was a prominent member of DELTA LAMBDA for some time in the early eighties. He told me how this organization formed him into the lawyer/ attorney he is today, graduating from University of East, NCR. Those practicing law find the United States a great breeding ground for law professions given their first language is English. Those with the background from the Philippines find migrating to America to be a smooth transition for living, and practicing their careers. These bridges also make the immigration and naturalization process much easier. DELTANs are some of the most compassionate people when it comes to relationships and friendships too. Thank you for hearing my testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpicyTiger (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — SpicyTiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Personal testimony has zero value here even from accounts with long positive historical use, so a new account coming to give this would have less relevance, if that was possible. But to counter the argument it's a new proto-organisation with a webite (blogspot) that appears to be only created today. Wikipedia is not for promotion of aspirations. KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– KylieTastic Can you tell me why the old page stayed up so long without any other credibility? The page was mostly untouched, only now is it receiving such scrutiny. I understand the organization has been dormant for some time but only when new life is being breathed into it is it questioned for deletion. This is upsetting. JJII (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Beexj there are 5.5 million articles so yes many with 'issues' go undetected even if its a low percentage. Many of the older articles get a bit of leniency on policy as they have existed for a long while, although they should not. However, just because the old version was around for a long term without showing notability gives no help to the current situation. The reason it now has scrutiny is because it has been changed fundamentally, or more to the point your edits changed the article in ways that were noticed by both the humans and the automated systems, thus bringing attention to its issues. KylieTastic (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– KylieTastic Thank you for explaining that. I hope you can see my efforts through as this is a real organization and I'm trying to comply with the rules. I'm starting to feel defeated though since everyone is trying to disprove the existence of this organization. Lack of concrete sources is getting to me though, they will be available soon. I just wish we could have worked through the rough patches before putting the page up for deletion. JJII (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Beexj no one is saying it is not a real organisation, just that all organisations on Wikipedia have to meet the standard set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And as I said on my talk page, if deleted it is not a final non-reversible action you can create a page via Wikipedia:Articles for creation in your own time. KylieTastic (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Beexj fails to understand that the criterion here is not whether the organization is "real" ("legitimate"), but notable. Which it is not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello all,J. Johnson (JJ)KylieTasticShawn in MontrealNaraht JJ I do understand the criteria needed, only I cannot prove the pure notability of this organization until relevant notable sources are produced. Thank you all for the discussion regarding this page, I will be back with notable information once it is made readily available to me. I'm determined to keep this page up, even if it's laid to rest for some time. I look forward to future discussions with you all. Thank you. JJII (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: it appears that you do not understand the criteria needed. (Which I explained at here.) In the first place, you are still getting your terms mixed up. E.g.: "notable" does not apply to the sources, or even information; it applies to the topic. Second, notability – do read WP:Notability – means that the topic has gained a certain amount of "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". There are several aspects of "significant"; you might note that "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" are explicitly excluded.

Finally: that you do not have reliable sources to show any significant attention by the world at large is a demonstration of non-notability. The issue is not in having "notable information" made available; the issue is that whatever attention Delta Lambda has gotten in "the world at large" is so minimal even you can't find it. That, despite that, you are "determined to keep this page up", and your lack of any other editing, indicates that you are "not here" for the encyclopedia, but only for this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

±J. Johnson (JJ) I appreciate your ambition towards this topic. This is a new organization based on old style ideals. I'm trying to prove that via the Wikipedia page, but the connections are vague because they are connections I have reestablished. The "connections" are vague, and therefore difficult to prove. And I've lacked other editing because I don't have the tools to keep posting updates to the page until I have sources readily available. If I could pull sources that are of influence to the club, I could use those, but still the connections between those sources and my new organization would be unclear. I am looking forward to updating the page for the sake of the encyclopedia, and it's upsetting you would think otherwise. I have been on these talk pages for the last week discussing validity and notability with KylieTastic and Naraht. And as far as my terms, I may have overlapped the meanings of legitimacy and notability but I think my point shines through. I suppose I would have to assume that any new organization, even when tied to an old one is difficult to broadcast on Wikipedia, and that's understandable. I just thought if I could connect it to old style ideals it would prove its legitimacy and therefore, it's notability. I suppose that isn't the case based on these inquiries.JJII (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your "point" (whatever it is) does NOT "shine through". What does shine through is that you do not understand the basic concepts here, and that trying to explain them seems futile. It doesn't take a crystal ball to anticipate how this is going to turn out, including frustration on your part because you don't understand why. I'm afraid there is not much any of us can do about that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• J. Johnson (JJ) Your negativity and deviation from the matter are not needed here sir. Thank you! SpicyTiger (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A comment which (like your previous comment) does nothing to save this article from deletion. What you seem to have not yet learned in your two-day old WP career is that competence is required. Nor is incivility a useful substitute. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson (JJ) your attempt at being a deep intellectual is failing, as you seem to be unable to formulate a simple sentence with grammatical structure. I suggest going back to university and taking a basic english and or sentence structure class, as it could do you well in a career on Wikipedia. Cheers SpicyTiger (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Only warning to all parties. Knock it off, be civil. We're discussing an article about Delta Lambda, no critiquing each other's grammar. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The old version at Special:Diff/766064642 appears to be about an entirely different thing than the current version, and is entirely unreferenced. The group at Michigan State is not verifiable either and isn't at [1] (a separate Delta Lambda Phi does exist); the blogspot blog isn't a reliable source and I believe it may be a WP:HOAX created by a participant in this AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect. Delete per WP:TOOSOON (and I'm using understatement) and protect per edit history and pressure at this AfD. gidonb (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2017 (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.