Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and sororities

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fraternities and sororities. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fraternities and sororities|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fraternities and sororities. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and sororities/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

Fraternities and sororities

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. ✗plicit 05:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Pi Delta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability. Has no significant coverage from a secondary source. The majority of the article is sourced to the group's website. Rublamb (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Fraternities and sororities, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article is only relying on primary source (source 2 is a trivial mention). Also can't find any secondary sources that are actually relevant (and not just about other things) on the web. Also tried searching with Greek and (with Google Translate) found out the same result. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Truthnope (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I deprodded this because its deletion without debate might be controversial. I'm not sure if it still exists. Bearian (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Alpha Lambda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability. The only source is the group's website. Significant portions are unsourced. Thorough search to find print and online sources was unsuccessful. Rublamb (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Fraternities and sororities, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I deprodded this because its deletion without debate might be controversial. There are a few hits on Google news. I'll leave it up to you all to decide if that constitutes significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits pre-date this group and are for another organization. Rublamb (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even searching for related terms like "Clark Atlanta University lesbian sorority" brought up nothing relating to this sorority. It feels very promotional. As an aside I looked at the others on the List of LGBTQ and LGBTQ-friendly fraternities and sororities and a large number of the recently formed organizations have suspect pages as well. Moritoriko (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything either, in either news or google at large that would be useful.Naraht (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2025 (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.

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. Sufficient independent sourcing has not been identified Star Mississippi 15:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Alpha Mu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability. Has no sources that provide significant, independent coverage. The sources consist of the group's website and the college newspaper. A thorough search for better sources was unsuccessful. Rublamb (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I was also unsuccessful in searching for better sources. --Spacepine (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are primary and a blog. Nothing else found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a benefit of deleting. The group owns property, has a 100-year history, and is recognized by the college. We set a higher bar for notability in the case of 'locals' versus emerging nationals, and relatively few single chapter locals meet that bar. This one does. It's a separate issue to rightly assert it needs additional sources. I'd maintain that tag, to encourage more research. Jax MN (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had notices regarding its reliance on primary sources, etc. since 2011. Rublamb (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. But nevertheless, they have property, have 1,000 alumni and 100 years of history, and are recognized by their campus. Hence, notable. Just under-referenced. Jax MN (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deprodded this out of concern that its deletion without debate might be considered controversial in today's political climate. I see a few news items, one of which discussed its decline from glory days. Once notable, an organization tends to remain notable. I'll leave it to you all to decide if the coverage is significant or not. Bearian (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share the specific sources? The only news articles I can find are from the campus newspaper (and should have already been added to the article). Rublamb (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all on Google News. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at Google News and can only find articles from the campus newspaper. Please provide a link to specific examples of a secondary source that can be used to meet notability. Rublamb (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2025 (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.