Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau Gamma Phi

: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 keep. MBisanz talk 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

=[[Tau Gamma Phi]]=

:{{la|Tau Gamma Phi}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tau_Gamma_Phi Stats])

:({{Find sources|Tau Gamma Phi}})

This article receives massive edits for the past month and have been tagged for many issues but have always been reverted by a user User:Lionsystems and frequently deleting the tags of other editors Lionsystemss (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Will someone familiar with the topic please adequately reference it, thus defusing the whole issue? It appears outwardly notable, but obviously we still need supporting references to demonstrate this.

: Then block that grossly bad faith username created just to AfD this whilst impersonating another user. As it's very likely a sockpuppet, checkuser and further blocking would be appropriate too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

::I'd reported the username to WP:ANI. First response was add uw-username to their talk. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Whilst I acknowledge the mess that this nomination is, the article is even more so. It appears heavily promotional, it is poorly referenced, and it is written in a very un-Wikipedia manner (for want of an actual term). Someone needs to do some serious work on this if it is notable, and there is already a history of multiple usernames that are very similar - User:TgpLionsystems, for example. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete; regardless of the background of the source for this AfD, the article lacks citations to independent third-party reliable sources, as required by the verifiability policy. -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep after cleanup. It is notable, as probably one of the 5 or 6 most significant Fraternity(/Sorority) in the Philippines, but getting secondary sources on these sorts of Philippine groups can be a *real* pain. It isn't helped by the fact that the number of Philippine sources in news.google.com is minimal *and* the ones that are have lousy retention policies. I've also invited User:Wakowako to comment.Naraht (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I have tagged this article *in good faith* before that it needs additional resources as it has only 1 reference which links to the fraternity's own blog. This article only needs reliable resources and needs cleanup. Yes, it is notable and one of the most significant fraternity in the Philippines.--Wakowako (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • CommentI've also found the history edit page that it has really receives massive edits which i think has vandalized the article that's why it has been reverted back by User:Lionsystems.--Wakowako (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

::No offence, but you may want to look properly. That user is a COI/SPA account and is either part of a co-ordinated COI/SPA effort, or a major sockpuppeter. Look at the redlinked users without userpages for a start, and look at their contributions - almost every single one is a SPA. Lionsystems & co/socks all keep re-adding biased, unreferenced information. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:::Yes, no offence taken, and I agree that the edits of Lionsystems are biased and self-promoting. But for me, Keep the article as it is notable, only needs sources and cleanup to be more of an "encyclopediac" article.--Wakowako (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep very notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - as one of the most significant fraternities/sororities in the Philippines, it's notable. Too bad most of Philippine media isn't in GNews for some reason. Article needs a lot of work, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

==Tau Gamma Sigma References==

Oddly enough the Tau Gamma Sigma article looks at least on the surface well referenced. This the strongly connected Sorority to Tau Gamma Phi. I'm not sure if a stronger check would help with bringing Tau Gamma Phi to acceptable levels or would make Tau Gamma Sigma appropriate for an AFD though...

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

: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.