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 of the debate was that there seems to me to be no consensus; therefore, the result is to keep the article. In addition, given that two closings have been reverted already (and discussion of this had alerted me to this AfD), I am very much tempted to protect this AfD page if it happens again. Please don't play silly buggers. James F. (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Wooster Greeks[edit]

This article has been on AFD twice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The College of Wooster Greeks and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The College of Wooster Greeks (2). The first AFD resulted in a no consensus type keep. The second was closed speedily with the rationale that it was a premature renomination. However this speedy keep was disputed and after discussion at WP:DRV there was a consensus for this to be relisted. My vote is below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fraternities(sororities and similar are not usually worthy of separate articles, even though such institutions are a part of student life. The presence of this list discourages creation of individual sororities at this college, and as long as all this info is consolidated into one article it doesn't do much harm. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Just keep the damn thing. By the way, "no consensus" on deletion means "keep" - David Gerard 16:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "no consensus" means "no consensus". Not that difficult, really. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly good article, well researched. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I voted to delete before. I just don't think that a list of fraterities or societies at a university is encyclopedic. - Hahnchen 17:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A listing of fraternities or sororities at a small college is nowhere near being encyclopedic. To quote Gamaliel from somewhere else:
  • Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a concise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not. - Gamaliel --Calton | Talk 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This list isn't concise, important, or useful. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please wikipedia is not paper but it is supposed to be a sum of human knowledge thats what we advertise Yuckfoo 01:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not supposed to be the sum of human knowledge per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edwardian 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into main school article Tedernst 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

(Comments within this area are copies of those made by participants in the second AFD; they were pasted here by User:Snowspinner. Editors may wish to comment anew, or simply let their original remarks stand. If new remarks and/or votes are placed, it might be a good idea to strike out the old or note changes apporpriately. I have restored two new comments deleted by Snowspinner, that of Just zis Guy, you know? (who had not participated in the second nom) and Unfocused. encephalon 18:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Strong Keep irrespective of any possible failings it survived Afd in September Dlyons493 Talk 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has no bearing on its current nomination. The vote resulted in no consensus. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 21:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The default is "keep" - David Gerard 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The College of Wooster after some snipping. --MacRusgail 22:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, collection of fraternity trivia. Pilatus 22:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This could be an interesting subject. I know people who went there, and supposedly Wooster didn't have nationals for decades because of a bequest from a former student that had been badly hazed that conditioned the money on no frats. I don't know the exact story, but it did lead to lots of oddities in Wooster Greek life, like no real houses (just halls in particular dorms, usually the bad ones). A2Kafir 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In an effort to build consensus I'm voting delete per nomination this time. --Metropolitan90 00:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  18:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wooster does in fact have an unusual history of fraternities, and this article is a reasonable spin-off of the main article. Snowspinner 21:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - the creator of the article, in the first deletion debate, notes that he made a trip to special collections to verify his facts. Which is to say, this article is the product of real work and real research. Yeah, there are more notable topics, and it could be formatted away from a list. But I really wish we would stop rewarding hard work on articles with "Delete nn." Multiple times. Snowspinner 22:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The introduction doesn't establish the point of the article, except that a bunch of things are "mysterious," and it's just a list of fraternities with a few incidents of history thrown in. I would not be opposed to a shorter article that was about history, which cited sources for necessary facts about fraternities instead of listing them all. Honestly, this sort of seems to be a FAQ (or correction of common misconceptions, maybe) about the fraternities at the college, but Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Am I wrong to vote delete on an article that might be rewritten completely with some of the same content, but is currently not at all an encyclopedia article? -- SCZenz 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per MacRusgail, after taking out all the lists of fraternities. I see no evidence the history is uninteresting, and there's no reason for the college not to have a section on fraternity history. -- SCZenz 01:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. Ultimately uninteresting to me and needs some cleanup, (especially in the lead) but should be kept. Unfocused 03:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (See Unfocused's new comment below encephalon 18:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment (no vote). I was the person to nominate this article the first time. I go to this college. I am not a Greek student, but have no problem with Greeks. At the time, the reason why I nominated was because the article was both POV and unverified, and, at the time, it seemed like that wasn't going to change. I had no idea where the author had originally gotten his information. Those two problems were resolved during the first AfD debate. I personally have an appreciation for the article now, though there are still problem areas, but I am not voting; I think my attending the school and my interactions with greeks color my judgment too much. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep this article about some of Wooster's unique history. Stop obsessing over procedure, assume a little good faith, give others a little space to pursue their own interests, and get back to writing articles, mmmkay? Unfocused 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Unique in what way, precisely? You are talking me into changing to a delete at present... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , unusually for me in the case of student nonse. This is too big to merge into the main article and nobody's going to be sufficiently motivated to scythe it down to the 100 words or so it deserves, so I say leave it but give it a better title e.g.: College of Wooster (Fraternities & sororities). I'd rather we didn't have to have this kind of thing, but there are too many inclusionists to make it likely we'll ever reach a consensus in that direction. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup, the article is currently poorly organized and hard to follow. The first thing it says is there are 10 greek organizations, then it lists many more; Move, the title sucks, call it Fraternities and Sororities at the College of Wooster or something (the current title smacks of subliteracy); Wikify, if any of those are national fraternities (and some claim to be it seems) they probably have articles here already; Verify, I'm not sure a student's independent study can count as a reliable resource, particularly when it seems unlikely to be available for review. Smerge. To help build consensus for a merger, which seems the best comproise. Most of those crossd out comments actually still stand, however (about cleaning and the like). -R. fiend 17:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more accurate to think of it as a "senior thesis" than an "independent study" - Wooster uses IS to mean something different than most places. The IS program has vetting comparable to MA theses, including oral examination and a second reader, and the resulting papers are kept by the library, making them reviewable/verifiable. Phil Sandifer 17:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to College of Wooster. Individual chapters are rarely considered encyclopedic. This topic is fairly obscure so it's not covered in many reliable sources. The most basic, verifiable information should be merged, the rest left out. The current content has improved but it's still not very encyclopedic or well supported. I've already started removing the most obviously inappropriate content. All the "rumored to" and "allegedly" original research should be left behind when merged. Now-defunct local student organizations are of such trivial interest that they're simply not very verifiable. Friday (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The useful parts of this have already been merged, so I guess that makes my opinion delete, for the same reasons given above. Friday (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I read correctly, your opinion is that the useful parts are "There are currently 10 active greek groups at the College of Wooster, 6 sororities and 4 fraternities?" Phil Sandifer 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Although, come to think of it, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to listing the active ones. Giving much detail beyond that is simply cruft. Friday (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If by "cruft" you mean "something you don't personally care about," sure. Phil Sandifer 01:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I meant was more like "excessive amounts of insignificant detail". Of course, this is a pure judgement call. It's the questionable verifiability of all those little details that concerns me most. Friday (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no indication of encyclopedic significance or notability in this information. There also still seem to be significant verifibility issues, as it is not clear which facts are supported by which sources. If the article is kept, rename and clean up as per User:R. fiend. Better would be a merge of the basic, verifiable information to The College of Wooster if this is not simply deleted. DES ^(talk) 18:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep any verifiable material, otherwise redirect to the college. Trollderella 19:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we just merge this already before somebody creates WP:KAAWNTCOWGFDB2? Radiant_>|< 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Friday and Calton. I would normally vote to redirect, as these are very useful in an electronic encyclopedia, but in this case the title is very unhelpful, as R Fiend said. encephalon 00:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think some people are very confused about what previous Afds mean. "No consensus" means "no consensus", which means the article isn't deleted at that time. So, no consensus results in a keep. But it does not mean "keep". Also, keep in mind the last Afd was improperly tampered with, in an apparent effort to make it look like a keep. Friday (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first statement is flatly wrong. But your second statement sounds like an accusation - would you care to elaborate? Phil Sandifer 01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a topic for deletion review, where I already gave my opinion. The relevance I see to this Afd is that the last Afd was irregular and should be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to discuss the last closure in more detail, this isn't the place. Friday (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • • An improper closure and an accusation of vote tampering seem to me to be two very different things. Phil Sandifer 02:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "No consensus" means an Afd did not reeach a consensuss. When that happens we keep the article, because there was no consensus to delete it. But it does not mean that there was a clear consensus to keep it -- in many cases it means that there were more people who wanted to delete than to keep, but not enough to form a consensus to delete. And the second AfD was closed before the normal 5-day period was up, in a proceduarally unusual and arguably improper (I argued it on WP:DRV) action. I presume that that action was taken because the closer was convinced that a consensus was already clear, and would not change; and that there was no intent to decieve or distort the results. I think it was ill-advised. DES ^(talk) 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That is utter nonsense. Articles are kept unless there is a consensus to delete. A consensus to keep may be formed, but it's quite irrelevant to the deletion policy, which only cares if there's a consensus to delete. An article does not require and has never required a consensus of editors in order to exist on Wikipedia. More to the point, it can easily be seen that after three AfDs there are few if any good reasons to argue for the deletion of this well researched and compendious article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not. Any article that merits inclusion in the encyclopedia will have a clear consensus to keep—if an article cannot get that, then it means that there are some problems with it, at least in the opinions of other users. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It is quite correct thst a consensus to keep is never required. However, when an article's AfD results in a clear consensus to keep that article would IMO be less subject to a future delete nomination, at least in the short term, and the appeal to the previous afd debate would be far more persusaive if it were nominated. An appeal to a previous AfD with a non consensus result has far less value, IMO, and i think that is the point Friday was making, or should have been making. DES ^(talk) 01:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The large amount of information that "is rumored," "likely," or "alledged" [sic] seems to violate the idea that WP:NOT "a collection of unverifiable speculation." Trivia such as "Symbol: Steal your Face (???)" seems to violate WP:NOT "an indiscriminate collection of information." Labeling information about hazing as "fun facts" seems to violate WP:NPOV. For example, while it may possibly be a verifiable fact that "[sorority] pledges had to ... write "Peanut" on the butt ... men would then be instructed ... to 'Slap their peanut,'" for editors to label such "facts" as "fun" betrays a certain POV. And "There is a common misconception that the College dosn't have any national fraternities"? I doubt it's that common to have any conception, let alone misconceptions, about fraternities and sororities at Wooster. While I appreciate R._fiend's optimism that attempts to clean-up, move, wikify and verify could save this article, the only info that seems even remotely encyclopedic is that "In 1999 ... the school received national attention when four Kappa Chi members were arrested for hazing pledges by beating them and urinating on them, leading to the eventual ban of the Fraternity." This can be merged with Fraternities_and_sororities#Hazing_issues, the rest can be deleted. Dragonfiend 04:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some aspects of the article need a lot of work. But the NPOV can be solved with a rewrite, and you can vote keep without necessarily wanting all of the information to stay. You can just be bold and rewrite or remove that section. Jacqui ^★ 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My decision is based upon the page not the previous AfDs: unverifiable, not notable. It seems that process complaints work only to keep, so to address them: first AfD borderline, second AfD immoderate. Look at the article, we're building an encyclopedia and this isn't that. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete. Dragonfriend is quite correct on saying that several aspects of the article are in violation of WP:NOT, but there are snippets in this article that do merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. That said, they belong at College of Wooster, not here. If a merge is not accepted, then my vote should be read as a delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article.--Nicodemus75 06:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or if there is something that could be kept Merge as a part of deleting. This looks like a bunch of data from an infobox for a fraternity or sorority. That data should be listed on the national article. Vegaswikian 06:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fraternity lists are not encyclopedic, and have myriad verifiability problems to boot. Xoloz 10:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: a note on verifiability. I can't argue with anyone regarding whether this topic is unnotable or unencyclopedic. Those two are amorphous subjects and everyone has a different view of them. But it troubles me when people say they worry about verifiability. An Independent Study, if you read The College of Wooster article, is not just some final senior paper. It is the second-highest rated senior capstone project after Princeton. As Phil said, it's more like a thesis. I'd like to point out that it's not something a student just writes and hands in and gets a grade. Advisers are involved all the way through; they wouldn't allow unverifiable information to get in. And, as Phil said, it's possible to get your hands on one. I know people would just like to be able to Google this to confirm it, but, as vandals on this site sadly indicate, finding something on the Internet is not a guarantee of its truth. Also, there are plenty of true things that are not on the Internet. And, in conclusion, if you want to help with the verifiability of Wikipedia, go help with Alanis Morissette, which literally has no sources (compared to this one, which is well-sourced) and probably gets looked at about 500x as much. Jacqui ^★ 15:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dragonfriend --JAranda | watz sup 01:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I think that's Dragonfiend. -R. fiend 04:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the friendly Dragonfiend. Xoloz 05:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some days are so mind-numbing, you vote twice. :) Sorry. Xoloz 05:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Such lists are unencyclopedic imo. Dottore So 10:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unencyclopedic trivia list Pete.Hurd 22:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep to clarify, yes i created this article. the major source of 75% of the information originaly placed in the article is The Wooster Voice articles on Greek Week 1991 and 1992 published Sept 13, 1991 and Sept 11, 1992 and availible in libraries in Northeast Ohio, special collections at wooster, microfiche at wooster, and from the Wooster Voive itself. The research on the defunct fraternities was done using the Wooster Index yearbooks noted in the article. There is no AfD criterion by which I view this as deletable. Vanity would require me - or anyone who has ever edited the article - to actually be a part of the greek community at that school, which I am not. CastAStone 23:44, 12 November 2005 (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.