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, can be moved to draft or userspace on request. All voters but one think the article fails notability criteria in its present form.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Alpha Kappa Omicron

Alpha Kappa Omicron (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No evidence that this article saisfies WP:ORG. Draft was declined at AfC for notability concerns twice the last time being here in October 2015 by Robert McClenon. The draft was tagged for speedy deletion for not being edited in 6 months with this edit, but that was removed by an IP editor. Draft was then moved to the article namespace two days later by it's creator here without any of the notability concerns being addressed. The sororities own website is cited a number of times in the article and is a primary source which cannot be used to establish notability. The Gamma Chapter Fundraiser citation is for a school newspaper that does mention the sorority (along with two others) being involved in a fundraising event, but the article is more about the event itself than the sorority (it's only mentioned in passing and only a single time) so that doesn't really help establish its notability. The citation for Project Pearls again seems only indirectly connected to the sorority itself (I couldn't find a single mention of the sorority on the page), so this appears to be unhelpful for establishing notability. The Mula Sa Ugat: From the Roots from the Golden Gate Express is again more about a fundraising event the sorority participated in than the sorority itself (one of the chapters is only mentioned a single time as being one of the participants). Same goes for Rapper.com citation. That leaves the book Brothers and Sisters: Diversity in College Fraternities and Sororities. This book can be found here on Google Books. The only mention of the sorority is on page 99 and that is just as single entry in a list of various other fraternities and sororities. None of the above represents the significant coverage required per WP:ORGDEPTH and I was unable to find anything other than social media sites or other trivial coverage after Googling " Alpha Kappa Omicron". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• The reason why this article had not been touched is because it kept being declined for candidacy as an article, despite having two different unbiased sources as references. It was picked up again in hopes of having someone without a varying mindset finally confirm legitimacy. This article has more references and is more detailed and accurate than similar articles on Wikipedia, which are not candidates for deletion like Kappa Zeta Phi's article page which has NO references but is still not considered for deletion. There has to be some sort of standard. and the users constantly nominating this article for deletion keep saying its due to lack of credibility. If you read earlier pages, i asked what specifically qualifies as credible source, i was told an unbiased paper like a school newspaper would suffice. It was never mentioned that the school newspapers had to write an in-depth article about either chapter. But there fact that the organization participated in those events are validation that the organization exists and is active on the campus, on more than one campus. I have provided two of those and still i am getting shot down. Is there a discrimination issue here? Every thing that was ask for was provided and this article is being nominated based of what? If the standard of my page far exceeds that of another sorority that is not even close to being deleted, then this page's status as an article should stand. The other sorority is one of many that have subpar referencing (related to your fluctuating standards of credibility) Naiele3 ( talk) 06:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Naiele3: Just for reference, I am not saying the sorority is not credible or that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't do good things. I am only saying that I don't think it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations which it needs to do to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article about it. There are many articles added to Wikipedia each day, and many of these, unfortunately, have similar notability issues. Some are noticed quickly and some go years before somebody comes across them and nominates them for deletion, but the fact that other articles exist about similar organizations is not really relevant and does not help establish the notability of Alpha Kappa Omicron. Newspapers, etc. are generally reliable sources, but more significant coverage is required about the organization than trivial mentions. This was explained to you in different ways by various editors in answers to your Teahouse questions Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 390#Notability Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 401#Notability and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 403#Draft: Alpha Kappa Omicron. It was also mentioned by KylieTastic when she declined your draft here. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Marchjuly:What was asked from this article: newspaper sourcing was given two fold. It can't just be decided on a whim to become more picky about the newspaper article contents. Should i go to the local school newspaper to tell them to write and in depth piece clearly outlining the members, executive board, and complete details of the sorority? As well as favorite colors? Wouldn't that make it more of the sorority's page than a wiki article? Otherwise how else would an article satisfy your ever changing demands? The fact that other articles exist that are subpar to this one is completely valid. This one meets standard MORE than the other ones. The fact that this one is being slotted for immediate deletion or "speedy deletion" and wasting ALL of the work that was put into it is completely relevant, as i was the one putting time into it. There is no clear point on what is wanted in simple layman's terms. The guidelines page is completely convoluted, and as such can only be interpreted with assumptions of clear points. Your article needs A. *** B. *** C. ***. You are good at referencing "evidence" against this page, why don't you actually assist in the creation of this article unlike many before you and clearly state what is needed. I have tried and been rejected after following the suggestions of others, to no avail and with no solution from those rejecting the article. It seems as if most of those doing the rejecting have a really bad god complex. Naiele3 ( talk) 07:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

If you are able to show that the sorority has received significant in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, then that would help show that it is notable for a stand-alone article. That is what the AfC reviewers who declined your draft were trying to tell you and that is also what DES was saying in his reply to one of your Teahouse questions on notability. That has always been the case and nothing has been changed on a whim. You were referred to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) a couple of times and it clearly says " A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." As I said above, trying to justify that this sorority deserves to have its own stand-alone article because it other more poorly sourced articles about sororites exist is not going to help etablish its notability. I am not trying to make light of the time and effort you've put into this, but we can't make the subject of an article more notable simply through editing article content per WP:ARTN. Trivial mentions, etc. made in reliable sources are fine for supporting information stated within the article per WP:V, but they are not sufficient for establishing notability. Something more in depth is needed. If such sources are not already in the article, then you just need to show that they exist per WP:NEXIST. I tried looking for them, but all I found where trivial mentions. Another editor may have better luck. If it can be show that such sources do exist, then I will withdraw this nomination.

Another thing to remember is that the fact that you created the article does not give you any ownership rights over it. Once you added it to the article namespace, it became eligible for anyone to edit. Any editor can remove content that they feel does not comply with Wikipedia's various policy and guidelines, even if that takes the article in a direction that you or the sorority might not agree with. Also, if you are connected to the sorority in any way, then it might be seen as if you've a conflict-of-interest. COI editing is not expressly prohibited, but it is something highly discouraged for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. When the article was a draft, you were given a bit of leeway to work on it as you please. It's no longer a draft anymore, so you don't really have any final editorial control over it. So, there is an option called userfication that you might want to consider. You can ask that the article be moved back to your userspace so that you can continue to work on it. You can continue to search for sources which show that the sorority satisfies WP:ORG. You can then submit the draft to AfC and see what the reviewers say. As long as you keep working on the draft, it will not be tagged for speedy deletion. A COI editor (if that's the case with you) is pretty much allowed to work on drafts without restriction because the AfC reviewers will vet the draft and advise the editor on how to clean the article up so that it satisfies relevant policies and guidelines. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I dont know where the assumption that i was offended about added/removed content came from. This article has been completely unbiased from the beginning with the only "PR" being their mission statement. (which can be found on every single greek letter organization's page). Also you said "but they are not sufficient for establishing notability. Something more in depth is needed. If such sources are not already in the article, then you just need to show that they exist". Which is the point of this, which we will call "a", to show their status as a recognized, high achieving organization on campus, and this which we will call "b" to show what they did to get that status on the campus. These are not easy things to do or maintain, so "b" serves as justification for "a", despite "b's" not having any mention of the sorority; hence "If such sources are not already in the article, then you just need to show that they exist" "b" proves the existence of "a". What is funny is in the disclaimer it says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." and i have verified the hell out of this article and had links to support the verification. If the issue is monetary, trust me, i donate to Wikipedia FREQUENTLY (but am soon to change that habit, as it is a waste of money) But whatever.

So first question is, will i have to move it back to the draft space, or will that be done automatically (even through i really dont thing that it should be moved at all)? Second is will the verification of incorporation be enough to prove that the organization is 'notable'. Since it is being registered with the california state franchise board with all legalities and what not in tow. Naiele3 ( talk) 21:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Marchjuly: is a reference like the http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=spartandaily reference suitable? it doesn't mention the organization in passing and in fact interviews a member. Should other references model this one? Naiele3 ( talk) 04:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Naiele3: In my opinion (others may feel differently), I think the school paper qualifies as a reliable source, but I would not call that significant coverage. The sorority is only mentioned twice by name and interviews are almost always considered to be primary sources (which cannot be used to establish notability). I think it probably could be used as a reliable source in support of the sorority's involvement in Project Pearl, etc., but not to help establish notability. However, as I said at the beginning of my post, others may feel differently. I do not get the final say and the closing admin might think it is close enough to count as one of the two sigcov sources generally considered to be needed per WP:ORG.

Finally, I just noticed your post from 21:37 April 18 (the one above what you posted today). I'm sorry I didn't notice it sooner. I believe I answered the questions you asked in various other posts later on in this thread. One thing though is that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether you donate to Wikipedia. If the "secret" to getting a Wikipedia article written about you or your organization (I am using "you" in the general sense, not to specifically refer to you) was to donate money, then anyone could essentially buy space in the encyclopedia and add whatever they like. I realize this was almost certainly something posted out of frustration, but Wikipedia really doesn't operate that way at all. The Wikimedia Foundation does have a full time staff and operating expenses, so donations from people such as yourself do help and are appreciated; however, you don't get any special privaleges in return (at least nothing that I am aware of). -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge, Userfy, or Draftify. I'd like to see this kept, but there do not seem to be the sources to meet the standard significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'm not sure where this could be merged, hence the other two options. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 11:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC). reply
  
• Keep. I'd also vote to keep this article. Naiele3, you've done a good job attempting to get this published. Valid references to assert notability include reference links to some or any of your three schools that have a citation for you among their valid student organizations. --You've done that. The newspaper citations are nice, but where they are 'thin' without more than the briefest mention of you, you might replace them with a stronger reference when these become available. Jax MN ( talk) 13:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I am not sure though Jax MN how sources such as this, this or this satisfy WP:ORG. The first one is just a mention of the sorority in a list of other greek organizations at the university. That seems to be the "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" referred to as trivial coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH. The second source goes into some detail about the sorority, but reads almost like a PR statement (possibly submitted by the sorority itself) than significant coverage by an independent source and might be problematic per WP:ORGIND. The last source does not even mention the sorority, but seems instead to be trying to show that San Jose State University has standards of excellence that it uses to grade greek organizations. The first two show that the sorority exists, but I don't think anyone is claiming that sorority does not exist. The fact that something exists, however, does not automatically mean it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that these references are thin - BUT specifically the SJSU refs are still valid. A difficulty that this organization faces, as do many of the new multicultural groups, is that it has been some years since a new version of Bairds has been published, which provides the most common reference for legitimacy by those groups it profiles. This new sorority has three chapters. Yet we have locals with no building who have their own Wikipedia pages. My view is that we need vastly more pages, not less, thus I continue to favor keeping this page. Jax MN ( talk) 14:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

thank you. the last publication of Baird's manual was in 1991, 6 years before the formation of Alpha Kappa Omicron. Unfortunately for this page, that works against its favor. Will incorporation of the organization be suitable enough justification to sustain this article? It seems as if you are the only one able to offer constructive criticism and suggestions vs dismissively directing me off to another page. thanks! Naiele3 ( talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Naiele3, I've been in your position. Make sure your refs are something other editors can find easily. Online is best, using a reference format that links to the article. Your citation of articles of incorporation would be very helpful and would mollify some of the critical voices. Finally, if you had a physical presence as a mailing address (a university office that is semi-permanent, and not a residence), this would also help. Good grief. Some editors are so annoyingly critical. Jax MN ( talk) 22:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

One more thing: if Alpha Kappa Omicron has an alumna or two who have been called out as such in a magazine or newspaper that are Notable, this may be referenced within an Alumni section. It's one more way to show that other valid sources agree that your organization is notable, and that this isn't just a product of a biased organization member. Jax MN ( talk) 22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

This would be helpful for verifying article content, but not really helpful for establishing Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia notability is not inherited and cannot be transferred from one party to another. The fact that an organization is Wikipedia notable does not mean that the members (former members) of that organization are also Wikipedia notable and vice versa. Citing the articles of incorporation may also be acceptable for verifying certain article content per WP:PSTS, but I'm pretty sure this would be considered a primary source and primary sources are not helpful in establishing notability. This is all fine for showing that the sorority exists, but existence does not equal Wikipedia notability. What it needed is significant coverage about the organization in multiple independent reliable sources. You [Jax MN] may refer to that as being annoyingly critical, but I refer to it as Why we have these requirements. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@marchjuly explain the difference (in the most CCC, concise, complete and clear way) between verifying existence, notability and verifying content, if you can. Although convoluted, cluttered and constantly rambling is more your style. Thanks Naiele3 ( talk) 02:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Naiele3: It's understandable that you're frustrated, but you probably should stop taking little potshots at me. You've done this in a few of your other posts and it's not something that Wikipedia is about. I have not commented on you as an editor and have tried to keep the discussion focused on relevant policy and guidelines, so I am kindly asking you to try and do the same. As for you question, I am not sure how to answer this without referencing various policy/guideline pages, but I'll try. Wikipedia requires that all subjects be notable, which basically means that they have received significant coverage in independent (secondary) reliable sources. Wikipedia requires that article content be verifiable, which basically means that whatever is written in an article can be verified by checking reliable sources. Simple basic/obvious facts do not needed to be supported by a reliable source, but statements/claims which might be seen as contentious by another editor or are about a living person generally require reliable sources in support. This is because Wikipedia articles are intended to be written neutrally in a manner that reflects what reliable sources say, and not written from any editor's personal point of view. Verifying the existence of something may be relevant to what is written in an article, and something that exists might be considered notable for a Wikipedia article, but existence does not equal notability. There are lots of things that exist. I exist as does every other person in the world. Every company/organization in the world exists. If existence was all that was needed for a Wikipedia article to be created, there would/could be a article created about everything we know to exist. The notability guidelines were established to place a limit on what should be included in the encyclopedia to ensure that such a thing does not happen, and it is according to these guidelines that Wikipedia notability is evaluated. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@marchjuly sorry, its frustrating because i feel like you are pretty much given game the run around. BUT this response is actually a little better and a little more clear. So how would individual parts of this article verified by outside sources contribute to getting notability for this article? i.e. does this org holding a fundraiser for a country affected by natural disaster contribute to that versus the org being mentioned as participants in an article about a fundraiser for a country affected by a natural disaster. and what other sources or articles count? this org does not have scandalous exposes about hazing, etc like other org (i was looking at other orgs articles and they have a lot of controversy pieces). what else can be done to establish notability, so that i can prove not only does this org exist (which we all know it does) but also that it is notable? i need ideas and a direction to head. Naiele3 ( talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Naiele3: I wasn't trying to give you the run around and I don't believe any of the other editors posting here or the AfC reviewers who reviewed you draft are/were trying to as well. Wikipedia notability is hard to get a grasp of because Wikipedia's definition differs slightly from what most people are used to out in the real world. So, the only sure way to try and explain it is to link to relevant policy/guideline pages and try expound upon what is written on them. Perhaps you were being half-serious/half-sarcastic when you posted Should i go to the local school newspaper to tell them to write and in depth piece clearly outlining the members, executive board, and complete details of the sorority?, but something like that in an independent reliable source would go a long way to helping show the sorority satisfies WP:ORG. Depending upon the depth of the coverage, you'll need at least one other equivalent source or to be able to show that such an equivalent source exists. Please note that by "exists", I mean such a source exists (as explained in WP:NEXIST) and not that the sorority itself exists. I probably wasn't as clear about this the in my above post, which seems to have caused some unneeded confusion. Two independent reliable sources which show that the sorority has received significant coverage would be enough. The entire source (from front to back cover) does not have to be about the sorority, but there needs to be more coverage than the stuff listed as trivial in WP:ORGDEPTH. As for being involved in a fundraising event, I think that depends again on the coverage the sorority receives/received for it. If the sorority was significantly involved in the event and received significant coverage for their involvement in independent reliable sources, then that might be considered as helpful towards establishing notability. If, however, the sorority was just mentioned by name or only very briefly, then that might not be considered significant coverage. A lot also depends on whether the event itself is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Involvement in something major like a nationwide/worldwide fundraiser which received lots of coverage might be seen as more helpful, than a local bake sale to raise some money. The following may not be good examples, but I'll try anyway.

First a general example. There was a terrible disaster somewhere such as a major earthquake, etc. which received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so some editor creates a Wikipedia article about it. While researching the article, the editor finds out that many individuals and organizations were involved in the recovery. Some of these were even mentioned by name in various newspaper/magazine articles about the disaster. These individuals/organizations may not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a stand-alone article, but they certainly might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article about the event. The editor, however, discovers one organization which played a huge role in the recovery and received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as a result. Not only can this organization be mentioned in the article about the event, but it also might be suitable candidate for a stand-alone article.

Now a specific Wikipedia example. Try thinking 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia, Band Aid (band) and Do They Know It's Christmas?. All three are connected and each is mentioned in the other articles; however, each was considered to have received enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to have somebody to create stand-alone articles for them. I'm not claiming that each article is perfect because technically all Wikipedia articles are not perfect, but they do seem to satisfy the relevant notability guidelines of WP:EVENT, WP:BAND and WP:NSONG. Now if you look in Do They Know It's Christmas?#Other versions, you see that one of the entries mentions that the band "The Genuine Solutions Group" released a cover version of the song for Rainbow Trust Children's Charity and this is supported by a citation for verification. There is a stand-alone article for the the charity, but no stand-alone article for the band. Perhaps there should be one for the band and nobody has written it yet or perhaps it's simply a case of the band not yet receiving the significant coverage it needs for a stand-alone article. I'm not totally sure, but my guess is that it's more of a case of the latter than the former. Sorry for the all the links and the length, but hopefully all this helps explain things a little better. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@MarchJuly Yes i was being somewhat facetious, but you actually clarified a lot branching off of that. Its so much easier to understand what exactly is being looked for in terms of content. Will definitely start looking up those articles to satisfy that. Also, i know you have gone over my article, but not sure if you actually read through it. Is there a way you can read over it and make edits, so that it somewhat aligns with standard, i.e. making it sound less biased? Until when do i have to move this article back into my userspace and is there a way i can petition editors to proof this article based on content (not references, notability, etc because I'm obviously going to start on that) to make it sound less biased before i move it into my userspace? Thanks Naiele3 ( talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

AfD discussions are normally allowed to run for 7 days (168 hours). Sometimes when the result is obvious (See WP:SNOW), the discussion is closed before then. Other times when things are contentious and the result is not so clear, the discussion can then be relisted (See WP:RELIST) to try and develop a more clear cut consensus. Generally, discussions which have run the allotted time are reviewed by an administrator according to WP:AFD/AI. The result is not simply counting up the yeahs and nays and choosing the side that has more. The administrator will read the comments and make their decision based upon how the relevant policies and guidelines are being applied. So 20 "delete" votes opposed by 5 "keep" votes does not automatically ensure deletion because it's the quality of the arguments that matter not the quantity. As I stated before, if you want the article to userfied, then the closing admin is most likely to honor this unless there is a good reason not to or there is opposition from someone. Once it has been userfied, you will not be under any pressure to complete the article by a certain date and can pretty much work on it whenever. If, however, you leave it unedited for too long (say 6 months), then it could be tagged for speedy deletion as abandoned per WP:G13, but all have to do if that happens is start editing it again. Drafts and other user subpages are generally left alone by other editors unless there is a serious policy violation that requires immediate attention. So, you'll be free to edit as you please. You can of course ask for advice or assistance and places like the Teahouse, etc. Many experienced editors will be more than happy to review your draft and offer suggestions, but most will refrain from directly editing the draft unless you give them the OK to do so, When you feel you've got things just the way you want it, just resubmit the article via AfC. If it gets declined, don't get discouraged; just simply try and make the suggested improvements. You can also ask for assistance at Wikipedia: Requested articles to see if you can find an experienced editor to write the article for you or at a WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities to get specific advice for this particular type of article. Just in case you haven't noticed, Rich Farmbrough has made a number of improvements to the article, including the sourcing of some of the article content and adding banners for various WikiProjects to the article's talk page. Some of these were made while it was still a draft, so he probably will continue to help wherever he can. One last thing, sometimes less is actually better than more when it comes to getting an article accepted at AfC. There are things called stubs which sometimes get gradually expanded into articles over time. Also, well sourced smallish articles sometimes give off a more favorable impression than long articles filled with lots of unsourced information. Drafts can always be expanded after they've been approved as an article. It's probably better to discuss this with an AfC reviewer since each one probably looks for slightly different things. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Some new editors, typically single purpose accounts, decide that AFC is too painful an experience, and decide to try moving the article to article space themselves, only to discover that AFD is really a painful experience. The author should have left it in draft space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

i wouldn't be a single purpose account if i can get one offing article approved. So far, this is the most cumbersome process, why would you think i would have the sadistic desire to go through this again?!?! Naiele3

( talk) 02:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Naiele3: I don't think Robert was trying to insult you. He's an experienced AfC reviewer who has reviewed lots of drafts and is probably just speaking from experience. There's nothing wrong with being an SPA. It's just some SPAs focus so much on a single article/draft/genre that they sometimes seem more not here than here. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but there are plenty of examples of this seen everyday on Wikipedia and AfC reviewers probably see them more than other editors. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia besides article creation, so sometimes when you're stuck and need to recharge it helps to try and work on something else. Poking around in other articles or on noticeboards is also one way to become better familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and see how they are being applied by other editors. It's also a good way to discover things that you can use in your drafts. You are, after all, free to edit any article that you feel could use a little improving and things should be fine as long as your edits comply with relevant policy and guidelines. If, by chance, one of your edits is reverted, try to understand why and treat it as opportunity to learn something new. Most experienced editors will be more than happy to provide an explanation for anything they revert when asked to do so. The ride can surely get a little bumpy sometimes, but it can help you improve as an editor. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I didn't say that you were an SPA, only that some new editors, typically but not always SPAs, will decide that AFC is too painful, and will move the draft to article space. You did that, and are discovering that AFD is much more painful than AFC. My thought is that you should have left the article in draft space, but you can correct your own mistake by moving it back to draft space. That will render this AFD moot. I suggest that you do just that. This draft does satisfy the minimal criteria to be kept in draft space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Draftily, but with the knowledge that it will be salted if moved back to article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

what do you mean by "salted"? Naiele3 ( talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Robert is referring to WP:SALT. It's a method that may be used by an administrator to protecting a page (usually one deemed inappropriate for policy reasons) from being repeatedly recreated. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have no objection to returning the artcle to the userspace or the draftspace if the creator wants to continue to work on it there. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

will you be doing this then, since you are gung-ho on its non-existence in the article space? Naiele3 ( talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Insulting another editor (and you are insulting another editor) is not the best way to get your article preserved in draft space or user space. However, what will happen is that this AFD will be closed by an administrator. If the consensus is Keep, it will be kept. If the consensus is Delete, the administrator will delete it, but you can request its undeletion to user or draft space. The more likely consensus will be to userfy it or draftify it, and it will be moved. As noted above, you can move it yourself, and the AFD will become moot. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Essentially what happens is that the page is moved back to either the draftspace or userspace. I believe any editor can do it if its uncontroversial, but sometimes things are complicated and involve a bit of clean up and an administrator is needed. If this is what you would like to be done, then simply clearly state so and then the administrator/editor who closes this discussion will decide if that's appropriate and take care of things if it is. The only reason I can see this not being done per your request would be if any of items WP:USERFY#NO is applicable. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Because moving creates a cross-namespace redirect, which may need deleting, it's often best for an admin to do the move. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 13:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC). reply

SPA Clarification

The purpose of this note is to further clarify my comments about Single Purpose Accounts. At Articles for Creation, many articles are submitted by an author who has no previous edit history. That is, their edits consist of a series of edits to compose the submitted article. In my opinion, these editors fall into two classes. The first is those who honestly want to contribute to Wikipedia for its good, not just their own, and who think that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is to write a new article on a topic. While new articles that meet our standards are greatly appreciated, writing a new article is very seldom the best way for a new editor to contribute to the encyclopedia. New article writing, complete with references, is the most difficult task for Wikipedia editors. New editors are often better off to do other less difficult but still important jobs. One example (only one) is copy-editing of existing articles.

The second type of new editors who have no previous edit history is those who have a self-serving purpose, who have come to write an article about themselves, their company, their band, or something else in which they have an interest. They are common, and they are SPAs. (Not all SPAs are bad. SPAs who edit only in a particular area, but who are neutral and productive, are good. SPAs who edit with a conflict of interest are not good.) Some COI SPAs, that is, new editors who are in Wikipedia only for self-promotion, try to submit their articles through AFC, and then discover that it is a painful process (for articles that won’t ever be notable), and move them to article space, and then face AFD, a more painful process.

I don’t know whether the author in question is just a sister/alumna of the sorority, or is associated with the national office and is promoting it. I will assume good faith that she merely has chosen her sorority as her first effort to write a new article. As she can see, writing a new article is hard. There are other ways to help Wikipedia, and I invite her to explore them.

I hope that this clarifies my SPA comment, which was not about any one editor, but about a class of editors, some of whom are problematic. In any case, AFC is not as painful as AFD, so use it, and you are welcome to help out Wikipedia in other ways. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Resume !votes and other comments

• Keep - Rich is right. Moscowamerican ( talk) 05:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete at best for now as this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete This debate has been going on for two weeks, and so far, no truly significant coverage of this sorority in independent, reliable sources has been brought forward. If that coverage existed, I would be happy to support keeping the article. In the 1970s, I attended San Francisco State University where the sorority was founded, and am very friendly to the university and its student groups. But Wikipedia is not a directory of every student group on the planet. Such groups must be notable as Wikipedia defines that term, and it seems this group is not yet notable. No objection to moving the content to draft space or user space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Searches simply did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This has been relisted repeatedly. If there isn't consensus, can we either please close it as No Consensus or decide that the strength of the arguments is for draftifying it or deleting it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree with the nominator's review of the sources as being insufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I was unable to find significant coverage of the subject. Cunard ( talk) 04:59, 16 May 2016 (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.