Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Psi Omega

: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. Salix (talk): 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[Alpha Psi Omega]]=

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

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  • 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) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 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 - Article has been requesting references since October 2009. IF the organization is as notable as claimed, supporters should be able to find references before the close of this AfD. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - References added and an OTRS requested for the History.Naraht (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • :You do realize that primary sources (From the subject itself) aren't appropraite for establishing notability. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Google News search finds only passing mentions "so-and-so was a member of..." or inclusions in lists. Google Books finds a little information in specialty journals like "The Southern Speech Journal" and "The Speech Teacher". Not enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep 550 chapters are enough for notability -- its a valid factor in judging an organization. Discussions in the specialty journals are exactly what one would expect to find and out to find fora specialized subject society. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that something be notable outside its field--if there were, out goes about 90% of the articles and we'd be a condensed encyclopedia , not an encyclopedia . Carrite is right about the nomination, which completely ignored deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have notvoted for deletion on many pages on fraternities and sororities with one to five chapters. There is no way an article on an org with 550 chapters should be deleted. If somebody could show that number to be made up, then I would reconsider. Abductive (reasoning) 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I found that there are 1650 results for "Delta Psi Omega", and 13000 results(!) for "Alpha Psi Omega" in GBooks, including significant coverage in numerous books, see for example [http://books.google.com/books?ei=qzexTZPXB4Gp8AOwqNGVDA&ct=result&id=9RIsAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Alpha+Psi+Omega%22+honor&q=%22Alpha+Psi+Omega%22+] [http://books.google.com/books?id=xcJJAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Gamma+Iota+Chapter)+is+an+honorary-+dramatic+fraternity+organized+for+the+purpose+of+%22&dq=%22Gamma+Iota+Chapter)+is+an+honorary-+dramatic+fraternity+organized+for+the+purpose+of+%22&hl=en&ei=FDixTfGeD4ew8gOC9OGVDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA]. I'm not saying those are particulary proving notability but among the thousands results I'm sure a good source can be found, additionally, I found that the claim of "little information in specialty journals " like "The Southern Speech Journal" and "The Speech Teacher". Not enough for notability." made by User:MelanieN is not accurate at all, because I actually checked those sources and they fit exactly into the definition of a reliable source AND significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Dragquennom (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:25, 22 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.