Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Alpha Mu

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

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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.