Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Kappa Gamma (2nd nomination)

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. And WP:SALT NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Kappa Gamma

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

This looks like something made up and not showing obvious significance. However, the page logs seem to have shown admins deleting and recreating it a lot, so I thought I'd bring discussion here first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the copy in userspace. —Cryptic 12:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single independent source provided that indicates any notability. Searches yield very little except that they raise money for some causes and collect a few mentions along the way. Oh, and they are on Facebook - who would have known. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Velella sources are all available below... thank you Appie094 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is WP:PRIMARY. As I search for info on the net I can't find enough to meet WP:ORG. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of times it has been re-created WP:SALT should be considered if final consensus if delete. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why would you place a protection on the page if this is the second time it's been created in 5 years... Also, there are available websites below where the fraternity is talked about in detail. Appie094 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; the page was created by a member of the fraternity which is a COI and their goal seems to be to publicize this group. I applaud their good works, but they fact that they are an official non-profit and do good work does not make then notable. d331dot (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 331dot my argument is not based on the work the fraternity does. Look at all the references and links that the fraternity is talked about in below please and that should change your mind because it meets the criteria for wikipedia. Appie094 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully state that I think as a member your conflict of interest is too strong to permit you to write an objective article that complies with the GNG. There is also a promotional element here as well, I think. I've already suggested that it would be best for you to consent to the page being moved to your Sandbox or Draft so you can further work on it as you learn how the guidelines apply. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot that would be great actually, much better than permanently deleting the fraternity. Appie094 (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is made for a fraternity that has been running for 17 years. Multiple websites showing brothers are www.betakappagamma.org and bkgbaylor.org . I have been working on the website for the past hour and would be very disappointed if my efforts were in vain. The fraternity has grown immensely since 2012 and even the content on the page has resembled that of any other fraternity on Wikipedia. In terms of national presence, if you look on school websites like Baylor, UT Austin or LSU, you will find Beta Kappa Gamma's influence on the community. In terms of chapter numbers, there are multiple fraternities and sororities that have less than 7 and ones that only have 1 chapter(local fraternities).

Also, the criteria here is subjective. I am providing sources that show that the organization is a legitimate one not only in terms of the university level but also in terms of the US Government. The Facebook links are showing y'all the impact the organization had because I keep getting mixed requests. This is a very subjective argument because on the wikipedia page, it states:

"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Additional considerations are: Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead."

I have provided more than 6 sources from different major cities and different states around the country.

These are sources that show that it is an established official organization in the United States and that it is a social service fraternity: http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sfl/chapter_orgpage.php?id=55 (UT AUSTIN WEBSITE) http://www.baylor.edu/studentactivities/greeklife/index.php?id=74963 (BAYLOR UNIVERSITY WEBSITE) https://www.docdroid.net/fTrEh2s/bk-articles-of-incorporation-1.pdf.html (Official document of article of incorporation) https://issuu.com/thedailyreveille/docs/issuu1026 (Page 3 showing BKG fundraising) https://www.gofundme.com/BetaKappaGamma

In addition to all these websites, Relay for life is the biggest cancer research event in America. Beta Kappa Gamma was the GOLD sponsor of Relay for life donating thousands of dollars. Here it is on their website. http://main.acsevents.org/site/TR?fr_id=82902&pg=informational&sid=209324

To show the publicity of the organization and both it's service and social impacts:

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/03/16/fraternity-to-hold-dodge-for-a-cause-fundraiser/ (newspaper) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTJ1kYwIsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKvHSeVmYAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpR5qFYnpZg http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Beta%20Kappa%20Gamma

Not only was there local coverage, there was also outside local coverage by cities outside of the fraternity's main residence/university.

These are additional sources for Beta Kappa Gamma in Houston and nationally

http://www.uh.edu/af/news/March12/green4.htm (UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON WEBSITE) https://www.google.com/search?q=Beta+kappa+gamma+friends+for+life&oq=beta+kappa+gamma+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i60l3j69i59.3587j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.facebook.com/The-Phoenix-Educational-Foundation-319334178173227/ https://www.facebook.com/bkgbaylor/photos/a.833981646649720.1073741830.830174837030401/997157443665472/?type=1&theater

MarnetteD Velella please let me know what you think. How is raising money for charity not notable?

Also, look at these fraternities, I have many more sources listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Phi_Gamma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_Iota_Society

Thank you Appie094 —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Appie094 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your question that you embedded in the middle of the thread above - How is raising money for charity not notable? - shows a complete misunderstanding of what Notability means on Wikipedia. It has a special and cafeully designated meaning here, somewhat different from the conventional usage. It would be worth taking some time out to read and understand WP:GNG, otherwise this whole debate must seem illogical. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella notable as in its presence on third party websites and publicity. The whole argument is proving you wrong by showing that there is an impact by the organization, it exists in may websites, there is legal proof and it exists in journals. What more can anyone do to show you? I've literally put so many sources in my article of writing if you went through it. My job isn't to prove you wrong, as an experienced user, just ask me what you need specifically and I will send it to you, I don't understand why this is much more complicated than it should be. Appie094 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Just humour me and read WP:GNG. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first sentence states :" "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So not just a trivial mention, but have a topic that directly addresses the organization and it's functions in detail, right Velella ?

Here is an article is ONLY talking about a tournament Beta Kappa Gamma threw, as it "addresses the topic directly and in detail":

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/03/16/fraternity-to-hold-dodge-for-a-cause-fundraiser/

Here is an article that goes into detail about the service the University of Houston Beta Kappa Gamma chapter did:

http://www.uh.edu/af/news/March12/green4.htm

Here is an article that goes into detail about the LSU chapter and about it's philanthropy event and fundraising(it's the third page):

https://issuu.com/thedailyreveille/docs/issuu1026

These along with the other links satisfy the notability requirement. I respect your background as a biology since I'm currently researching in molecular genetics and you realize how important reliability of references are in research. Please Provide me with specific criticisms. You are contradicting yourself and what is actually written on the page. All your giving me are sarcastic remarks. Appie094 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Please actually visit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Epsilon_Psi all of the 6 references are from the fraternity's website. This is not a very fair evaluation of this fraternity. Appie094 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella http://www.s4g.com/Beta-Kappa-Gamma-Fraternity-Paraphernalia, https://www.onegreekstore.com/org/beta-kappa-gamma >Here are two websites that sells this fraternity's merchandise. https://greekhouseoffonts.com/org/ >and another that designs their letters for creation of merchandise Harshy389 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other things exist; each page is judged on its own merits. That said, it seems you may have found another page that might merit deletion- especially if it was created by a member of that group. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk so even this website as well with no references? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Phi_Gamma or this one with just the national website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_Iota_Society The point I am trying to make is that I have fully provided much more websites than many organizations, yet I am receiving no criticism based on the content but merely based on the way I am presenting my information. Let's not get side tracked and work together to fulfill all the requirements to make this a valid page. Appie094 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is based on the content- we are saying that the information the content gives does not make your fraternity meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I went through google and google news and added to the article. I think the article on the Hazing Death at LSU and the student newspaper coverage of the fraternity as part of the Dodgeball tournament at Baylor *may* be enough.Naraht (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Fails WP:NORG The news coverage of the hazing death itself may be notable, and if so, should be included in the Hazing article. It does not make the fraternity itself notable. Balance of sources are social media and primary. It appears to be regularly recreated with a distinctly promotional tone. Scr★pIron^IV 16:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 April 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.