Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleo of Alpha Chi (2nd nomination)

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. I usually don't like to close "1 voters" as delete but this has been listed for 21 days, has one sound delete !vote and no objections to deletion. If someone thinks that notability can be established then I will be happy to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo of Alpha Chi

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

Non-notable single-chapter frat house. No evidence of notability presented beyond its own small college. No sources given beyond the organization's own website, which in any event is a private site. A VfD was filed on this in 2005 and closed as a Delete; the day after, the creator promptly recreated it, which seems to have slipped through the cracks. Six years on, the subject's notability hasn't improved. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY (no sources at all aside from the subject's own web site) and WP:ORG (text doesn't really establish notability even if it were substantiated by multiple independent reliable secondary sources). Some material here might possibly be appropriate for merging into Delta Kappa Epsilon, but only if suitably sourced. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:17, 19 August 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.