Talk:List of Alpha Phi Omega members

message: looking forward to you demonstrating notability, I failed at finding even a single source which demonstrates the notability of the topic and none are currently used on the page. I hope you can do better, I suspect there might be sig cov in Tagalog or another non-English language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute that I have a WP:COI here. (Alpha Phi Omega has been on my user page for 15 years) My confusion is to whether your notability issue is about Alpha Phi Omega itself, or more generally *All* of the articles in the subcats of :Category:Lists of members of United States student societies. (In either case, your choice of adding notability here alone of them was somewhat of a surprise) Your answer would help greatly in this regard. And as for sources, there are far more on Alpha Phi Omega in English than Tagalog. Although in terms of pure membership, Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines is larger than Alpha Phi Omega of the USA, in general finding information on Greek Letter Organizations is *far* easier in the United States than in the Philippines. (The Philippines lacks the tertiary backbone sources equivalent to Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities and has a *far* less organized structure for Greek Letter Organizations. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities and depending on your issues with this page, a discussion there might lead to a more general discussion. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice for further suggestions on the question "If X as an institution is notable, what additionally would determine notability of List of Alumni of X."Naraht (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My editing is largely stream of consciousness, I address problems and opportunities which appear in front of me as they appear. In general yes I think we have a number of stand alone lists of fraternity/sorority members which don't meet our notability standards but I don't think thats unique to them... Its a issue with list articles for insular groups in general which don't receive much independent coverage of member lists, for example I have also tagged List of Opus Dei saints and beatified people as potentially not meeting our notability standards. I must stress that my own wikipedia process is a slow one, I will not be nominating the page for deletion anytime soon (my understanding of how long is long enough to wait for people to find sources is measured in years, not hours or days). My general understanding is that the notability of lists is regulated by WP:NLIST. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the question is, what would *you* say would represent a source showing Notability of the page? I'm assuming the following: 1)You don't challenge that Alpha Phi Omega is notable. 2) If you didn't feel that it *could* be made notable, you would have gone straight to AFD.Naraht (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who, years ago, sent a lot of things to AFD, I'm pretty sure this would survive. Since fraternities share a sort of culture, it is interesting to see who was a member. Also, for some members, their fraternity remains an important part of their lives; fraternity affiliation is frequently mentioned in obituaries. And a list like this is easy to maintain. I don't see a reason to AFD it. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sources currently on the page count towards notability, what is not on the page which would count towards notability? Obits don't count, it has to be coverage of members as a class not coverage of individual members. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

text: You aren't allowed to go straight to AfD (I never have and I'm not aware of a competent good faith editor who does, surely you do not). I don't challenge that Alpha Phi Omega is notable... The source we would need would be a reliable source which also makes a list of members or at least covers members of APO as a distinct topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A list that already exists borders on a Tertiary source, not a Secondary one, but I'm fine with that. I'm trying to figure out why source would ever cover members of Alpha Phi Omega as a separate topic without covering Alpha Phi Omega, that would be something like "Here is an analysis of the fact that members of Alpha Phi Omega members live shorter lives than those that don't, but we don't consider what Alpha Phi Omega characteristics has to be relevant to the topic." (This issue would seem to be equally applicable to say List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, all of whose references in the header would be viewed as Primary) I would say that the best possible reference here would be a secondary source that both talks about Alpha Phi Omega *and* has a list of notable Alumni of the group (say half a dozen). The question is whether three of *those* types of articles would be needed in order to show notability.Naraht (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If thats the case maybe a category is preferable to a list? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not allowed. Membership in an organization is not a determining characteristic. And I really think this discussion belongs somewhere else (like WP:FRAT) since the points we are discussing are far broader than Alpha Phi Omega. Also, List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers is a featured list, and I'd love to understand in what ways this article differs in fulfilling notability criteria from that list. Naraht (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I wasn't aware of that, we have hundreds if not thousands of such categories. Well... The more you know... Any links you can share? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability  

message: * Specific text to be added or removed: After Glen Kendall's entry in Academia section. 
* Reason for the change: Additional notable member found.
* References supporting change: https://digitalcollections.library.miami.edu/digital/collection/asu0053/id/9947/rec/1346
Naraht (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional entry 

message: * Specific text to be added to removed. Change  
to </nowiki> 
* Reason for the change: reference found
* References Supporting change: http://www.apoarchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCTOBER_1965.pdf
Naraht (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

text: — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: References