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. This is a great example of a case where it's not the number of !votes that count but the content and policy basis behind the discussion itself. At one point the discussion looked like it could have been closed as a WP:SNOW keep. However it is telling that 10 days after the carefully reasoned analysis from HighKing and others that challenges the basis of the previous keep !votes, there hasn't been a single argument put forward to counter the case for deletion. WaggersTALK 13:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UP Halcyon (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)

A previous AfD was closed as redirect, but overturned and relisted at deletion review. I am filing this new AfD as a procedural nomination only; I offer no opinion on the notability of this article. Please see the linked AfD and DRV to review the discussions there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recreated with new sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:DDBB:5FD1:FCB9:EB0C (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The revised article now has nine references, none of which are owned or operated by the organization itself. These include university references and accolades, local media, and governmental websites to prove both the actual existence of the 17-year old organization and its notability. This satisfactorily addresses the previous AfD concern (reasonable, IMHO) that there had been no sources. We should leave the hatnote reminder that additional citations may still be added. Jax MN (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jax MN. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe previous concern about citations has been fixed with credible sources.Rublamb (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now meets WP:NORG with new sources added to the article. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth, IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous AfD's reasoning doesn't apply to this AfD anymore. In fact, the DRV was just a waste of time. Anyone can recreate the page with a new set of sources. SBKSPP (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SBKSPP, just to clarify. At the DRV, some editors (who are much better versed in the minutae of Wiki processes that others) pointed out that the original argument for deletion (that there was no sourcing) as provided by the original nominator had been addressed - therefore the AfD should be closed. While I don't agree with that reasoning - an AfD evolves and develops and we had moved on to examining sourcing - it was decided to open a new AfD. The arguments at the previous AfD do apply to this one as you can see from my response below. Also, no, if this page ends up being deleted, attempts to recreate it will result in actions to prevent the page from being created and might also result in actions taken to prevent editors from recreating this topic, even under different article titles. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have stood with my vote if only it was relisted. If this page ends up being deleted, anyone can create a redirect out of it anytime. But times have changed since it was re-nominated. I believe per above arguments it now meets NORG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above as already meets the criteria standards after a revision fixed. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging previous participants who may not be aware of the DRV and this relisting (which in my opinion should have been done when this new AfD was created. Whatever). Pinging Lenticel, Oaktree b, Dream Focus, MrsSnoozyTurtle, JWilz12345, Superastig HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, the previous discussion should've been relisted. With that, the issues in the DelRev can be easily pointed out there. This discussion seems to lose steam after the article was renominated. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment still not seeing notability. Sources are brief mentions. Could be a subsection in the College's article perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the previous AfD I provided a detailed analysis of why the sources (including the nine additional references) fail NORG criteria for establishing notability. At the end of the previous AfD, Rublamb said to "agree that more sources are needed to prove notability". Great! Yet I note that no additional references have been added since the previous AfD and there's a bunch of editors !voting to Keep and repeating the previous simplistic reasoning. Lets be clear, especially in light of the previous AfD. Reasoning such as "credible sources", "new sources", "now has nine references", "meets the criteria standards", etc, fail to address the elephant in the room from the previous AfD - that not a single reference meets NORG criteria for establishing notability. From the previous AfD, Rublamb put forward a number of arguments as to notability - it appears to me from the reasoning provided above that the Keep !voters have decided to simply parrot those reasons and other comments from DRV. I'll therefore address the arguments put forward by Rublamb previously (and to a lesser extent the previous arguments from Jax MN but which also applies to the Keep !voters above too).
  • When Rublamb says that the sources qualify as ;;"indepdendent and reliable";; and that those ;;"citations back much of the previously unsourced content of the article, and also document the work undertaken by the organization";;, that's an important part of writing any article and a good thing. But, that is mixing up the difference between references used to support content in the article and references used to establish notability. While just about any reliable source may be used for the former purpose, not all sources may be used to establish notability. For example, Rublamb says that two of the added sources (out of the nine that Jax MN mentions above) "prove that this group has partnered with" some organizations. Great. That's using sources to support content as per the former purpose, but that's not the same as saying the also fulfill the latter purpose. Establishing notability requires sources that meet certain additional and more stringent criteria.
  • Rublamb also said in the previous AfD that those sources "collectively builds a case for notability". That comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of NORG criteria - we don't examine sources collectively. In the previous AfD I posted the requirements from NORG but for convenience, here are some of the pertinent points again. WP:SIRS says that *each* source (for the purposes of notability) must meet *all* the criteria. Failing any one of the criteria (e.g. failing CORPDEPTH or ORGIND, etc) means that source does not help to establish notability.
  • Rublamb said that "a university and its student organizations are independent of each other". There's a couple of things to say about this. First, that's not exactly true in this case. The university itself decides which student organizations exist - the following appears on the university website: "Student organizations will only be considered by the college if it complies with and abides by the rules set by the university and the college". Can't therefore say that the two are independent much less unaffiliated which is important because the test established in WP:ORGIND requires specific content (which must be in-depth and significant) that is attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
  • Rublamb previous said "UP Halcyon cannot control what the university PR office writes" which is true but shows that there is a misunderstanding of the criteria. The "importance" of the publisher is largely irrelevant - it is the content which is important. For example, you can have an article written by the New York Times but that doesn't automatically establish notability. We look at the content. If the article doesn't have the type of in-depth original and independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc we require, then the NYT article will not assist in establishing notability.

In summary, none of the arguments bear up to scrutiny. None of the Keep !voters can point to any specific reference which meets NORG criteria for establishing notability. Not one. The topic fails NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION and lacking in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is sufficient input here, @HighKing:'s note about a belated notification has merit, so making sure interested editors can weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think User:HighKing summarizes the points well. Also we are talking about a College here. Not UP Visayas itself. Alternatively, per WP:ATD we can still revert back to the redirect to University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is an obvious lack of sufficient independent in-depth coverage of the subject. Strongly support User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2022 (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.