- 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. ✗plicit 12:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ANAK Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has 63 references, but NONE of them 1) are independent of the society or the university it's based at and 2) provide significant coverage of the subject. Therefore, the subject does not meet WP:NORG. An early FA, this was just delisted due to lack of independent sources. Pinging participants in the FAR: Vanamonde93, SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Bumbubookworm. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per FAR Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Buidhe, if the article is deleted or redirected, please remember to note at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
[reply]
Merge and redirect to Collegiate secret societies in North America; there is independent coverage available and found in the first link in the template above to google books,
- Secret Societies: A World History of the Clandestine ‘Clubs’: Freemasonry Ku Klux Klan Opus Dei Triads (Gangs Book 2) by Benita Estevez | Jul 24, 2014
- Secret Societies Vol. 3: The Collegiate Secret Societies of America (Volume 3) Paperback – February 20, 2015 by Arthur Morius Francis (Author)
- That is not enough to warrant a Featured article, but it is enough to warrant an article. Vanamonde93, those are both available at amazon and others and discuss ANAK; does that convince you? I found those easily, by clicking only the first link, so more might be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, I'm afraid: the second book is from Lulu dot com, a self-publishing company, and the author has no credentials that I can see. I can't see the content, but the page of contents suggests all their content is lifted from Wikipedia. The publisher of the first source is so obscure that I'm unable to find a website for it, and I see no reason to believe it's any more reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured articles require high quality sources, but regular notability does not; are you applying a standard too high (I ask, recognizing my dismal record at AFD :) I looked at content that was available and could not convince myself it was lifted from Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite confident; Lulu dot com applies no editorial oversight whatsoever. That source is no more or less useful than a blog, printed and bound. Take a look at our WP:RSP entry. The other source is not obviously garbage, but it's not obviously reliable either; and to meet GNG, sources do need to clear the basic bar of reliability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That RSP blacklist mention does it then; struck my Merge declaration. Thanks for the clarification! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I find RSP to be an invaluable resource, happy to share it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is; I should have thought to look there first. But then, I must maintain my record at AFD ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 27 November 2021 (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.