Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha sigma delta

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha sigma delta

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

Apparent WP:COI (see this revision of the article's talkpage), fails WP:NOTABILITY altogether and (seems to me) worded as a promotional article (See WP:PROMOTION #4). Davidbuddy9Talk 00:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no credible claim of significance.TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not speedy delete, just delete) as a non-notable organization. No reliable sources or bylined newspapers have made mention of it. I agree that the current text also reads as promotional, although this is not, in and of itself, a deletion criteria. But the lack of notability is. Fieari (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Only passing mentions on unreliable sources, fails WP:ORG. Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2016 (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.