Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Pi Sigma

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. The most compelling arguments were "All Google news hits refer either to an older sorority in the 1930s or to a KKK-front fraternity in the 1920s", and "this sorority is only found in one US state, and has no secondary sources whatsoever". Arguments such as "not notable"/"notable", without supporting argumentation, were discounted, as were ad hominem arguments and arguments made on purely procedural grounds. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Pi Sigma

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in evidence, reads like the pamphlet that is handed out during orientation. Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be something that is obvious to some via popular awareness, it should be noted that there is no easy to obtain evidence to support notability. The article comes entirely from the webpage and the correct way to counter arguments is evidence.Tetron76 (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are issues with the article. I am not sure if being a Latino Sorority makes the Sorority notable on grounds other than WP:GNG but if not there are issues as concerns finding references from google news archives there appears to have been previous sororities of this name from the one [1] with quite a checkered history.Tetron76 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Google news hits refer either to an older sorority in the 1930s or to a KKK-front fraternity in the 1920s. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the number of chapters is borderline,But, as I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disregarding any irregularities with the nomination (as should always be the case), this sorority is only found in one US state, and has no secondary sources whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (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.