Hello. Concerning your contribution, Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Chi_Chapter_of_Delta_Kappa_Epsilon#DKE_Depository. As a copyright violation, Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hwf1870. You have new messages at Talk:Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page found to contain a substantial amount from http://dspace.library.cornell.edu:8080/bitstream/1813/3931/1/DX%20Handbook%202006.pdf - Copyright: ©1995 ―Delta Chi Association, Ithaca NY. - SquidSK pasted the wrong link.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the copyright is held by the Association and not by you directly. Accordingly, even if you are the author, the Association would have to consent to license the text under GFDL and/or CC. For ease of following the discussion, please reply on this page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Delta Chi Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Be advised that, with very limited exceptions, individual chapters of fraternities are not notable. The exceptions are where the chapters started out as significant stand-alone organizations. Accordingly, there is a high hurdle to clear before DX of DKE can get its own article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. There is still no assertion of significance in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your message on my talk page. Regarding this text:

This chapter of DKE is one of the most historically significant college societies in the United States. It has direct connections to a host of important historical figures including two Presidents of the United States. The lodge is on the National Registor of Historic Places and the Ithaca Landmark list.

Many chapters or many fraternities have connections to US presidents, but none of them have articles. The lodge is a building and is separate from the chapter; the building's notability (which being on the National Register is not an immediate indicator of) does not transfer notability to the chapter.

If the chapter is as significant as you claim it to be, then it should have been covered in independent, secondary reliable sources. If you can provide a list of those publications which have given significant coverage to the chapter–not merely a mention in an article on the fraternity, but substantial coverage of the chapter—we can evaluate whether the chapter meets the general notability guidelines.

However, at this time, I do not see a substantial, independent claim to the notability of the chapter. Accordingly, it is subject to, and has been removed by, speedy deletion under criterion A7, an organization without an assertion of notability.

Just as the chapter is not notable, the Delta Chi Association is almost less notable, since it is a support organization of a non-notable organization. (I don't even think a similar organization supporting the Delta Chi international fraternity would pass the notability threshhold—and that's a full fraternity, not an individual chapter.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you left the message for me also, I'll add a few comments to acknowledge that I've read it and that I'm paying attention & not ignoring your concerns. Unfortunately, there is really no hope of having an article unless there has been material about this chapter published by those outside the fraternity itself, discussing the chapter in a substantial way==not just mentions in peoples bios. A very few fraternity chapters and single-college societies have such material, but it is really quite rare.

This is not a personal decision by any one of us or all 3 of us. Much less is it a decision by any automated system. Ronjones, C.Fred, and I are just administrators here (we often call ourselves janitors), responsible for doing things that the community agrees need to be done, and we do it by looking at each article individually and considering it. There are some programs identfing articles that need to be looked at, but every individual one of them needs to be examined and decided by at least one of the several hundred administrators janitors. The community is quite certain that articles or organizations like this are not acceptable, and have said so uniformly every time it comes up for decision. They are so sure, that they permit us to remove the articles without needing separate discussions on each of them. Our decisions can be appealed to WP:Deletion review, where anyone who wishes to comment may do so, but I would advise against doing it, because it would not be productive. You should understand it from the fact that the 3 of us agreed quite independently, and for the same reasons. So will essentially everyone else who regularly participates here.

There's a better idea. Many of the alumni of your fraternity are probably notable by our standards at WP:BIO. If they are , you can write articles about them, and one of the things you can include is their membership in DKE. Be careful to only do those for which there are sources. As a hint, every member of a state legislature is considered appropriate for an article, and so is everybody with a full obituary in the NY Times. So are athletes who have had professional careers beyond college sports. I see you have contributed to two such articles, but there are probably more. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think C.Fred and DGG have covered a lot of points. A couple of extra points I might add - If you do find good reliable sources for the content of your page, then please try to aim for in-line references - A plain list at the bottom of the page will cause a lot of editors to question the page's suitability, editors want to know which fact is cited in which article - that may be the same article for a lot of them - but the use of the "name" parameter in the <ref name="">will sort that out automatically. Second, once you have achieved such a page, then consider submitting the data at Articles for Creation, you will them get a broader spread of editors to assist you and pass comment, without the problems of creating a page only to see it deleted days later.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have received—as apparently have DGG and Ronhjones—your new proposed text for an article on Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon. It has almost completely failed to address the concerns I raised in my prior message about notability.

First, to reply to your comments:

All sources for the material are cited.

The citations given in the article are for primary sources—your writings about the chapter. As we have already established, you are connected to the chapter, so your writings are not secondary sources.

I note that Wikipedia carries many articles on specific clubs and societies in American universities.

Other articles exist. They exist based on the specific merits of their articles. The fact that similar subject Y has an article is not a reason for subject X to have an article.

Now, going point-by-point through the general notability guideline:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

N Significant coverage is not present; no more than one page of text is mentioned, and it isn't clear from the citation whether it's even truly notable.

N Reliable is hard to assess on the Heraldic Register of America, though I would expect they are not reliable, and that they take most background information on the covered groups from the groups themselves without editorial review.

N Sources should be secondary sources for purposes of assessing notability. See below.

N Independent of the subject: the majority of the sources are not independent, as you wrote them. The remaining source is the Heraldic Register of America (see above).

Based on failure to meet the requirements, the chapter is not presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria.

Now, looking at the specific notability guidelines for organizations:

N The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. There is no evidence of any activity of the chapter at any level beyond the local level. In fact, your points on historical significance all relate either to the university or to members. There's no evidence of any activity by the chapter at the national level.

N Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. As noted above, only primary sources have been identified.

N Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. See above.

Y The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. The longevity of the organization could be considered. However, it has to be considered in light of the other elements, especially the lack of sourcing.

And finally, but perhaps most damning:

N Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. See above about the absence of reliable independent sources.

Accordingly, after reviewing the text and provided sources, my recommendation is that you should not proceed in an attempt to create another article on the chapter. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]