Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Omega Epsilon

: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 Keep on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[Alpha Omega Epsilon]]=

:{{la|Alpha Omega Epsilon}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Alpha Omega Epsilon}})

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 01:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - Notable organization. This is a legitimate sorority for engineering women, present at many universities known for their engineering colleges. The page is in the process of having citations and edits done to it to make it read more like an encyclopedic article.
  • 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) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even though the nomination is half-assed, smacks of bad faith and lacks any kind of research, I didn't find anything that would enforce the notability factor of this organization, the article does not cite any sources, it is written like an essay (most of it without wikified text) and I've searched throughout the internet and could not find anything rather than what this organization is all about (a organization for women empowerment on the engineering and technical sciences field), and further research always provides Baird's manuals or national list of these kind of organization. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep—Numerous entries in various who's who volumes speaks of at least a nominal basis for notability. Chapters exist at various notable universities (Georgia Tech, USC, Virginia Tech, Michigan, Syracuse, Clemson, Wisconsin, &c.), so I believe an article is appropriate content for Wikipedia. Clearly the current content needs better citation.—RJH (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unreferenced puffery that smacks of information in a pamphlet handed out at orientation. Notability is questionable. Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Nobody is arguing perfection; flag for sources. Twenty-five national chapters seems sufficient to imply that independent sourcing exists. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Delete - While the organization may be notable, I can't seem to find any reliable secondary sources. Consider: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22alpha+omega+epsilon%22&hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=eh4&channel=cs&prmdo=1&tbm=nws&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&ei=udylTebtA4HQsAOvyMn5DA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CCwQ_AUoAw no news articles], [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22alpha+omega+epsilon%22&hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=K3j&channel=cs&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&ei=9tylTbecCYu-sAO2-M36DA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=6&ved=0CBoQ_AUoBQ no books other than yearbooks], and all of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=652&q=%22alpha+omega+epsilon%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq= regular search results] that are relevant are primary sources (eg. the national organization's website; chapter websites; etc.) Should be deleted due to the lack of reliable secondary sources. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep a college fraternity with 25 chapters is presumably notable, just as any other national level organization. This is one of a series of bad faith nominations and it amazes me that anytone would defend them. the article needs some pruning, but that;s not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.