Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha beta alpha

: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 per sources added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[Alpha Beta Alpha]]=

:{{la|Alpha beta alpha}} ([{{fullurl:Alpha beta alpha|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha beta alpha}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

National fraternity with only one active chapter. Fails WP:ORG, no third party sources. Google turns up nothing related, not even their personal website - but several unrelated fraternities with similar Greek letters. I'm just not seeing the notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No third party sources talk about it. Tim meh ! 01:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete has a history and has existed at more than one campus but no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I'm finding some independent sourcing out there. Do we actually have frat notability guidelines lying around somewhere?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

::Where are you finding those sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

:::[http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US306&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22alpha+beta+alpha%22+library+fraternity Google], as usual. :-) I added the links that looked most notable/reliable to the exlink section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

::Comment nice job on finding that, I sometimes forget about Google books. We need a few more though. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Alpha Beta Alpha for correct capitalization. There do appear to be some sources available to confirm the historical existence of this organization. I suspect that the organization went into decline due to the fact that library science is now studied primarily at the graduate level instead of the undergraduate level. I will try to improve the article in the meantime. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

::Page has been moved as per Metropolitan to make the title MoS compliant. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep The notability of this fraternity is confirmed by the sources that have been added to this article. Cunard (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Comment It's been suggested to me that it may be part of or affiliated with as large as Beta Phi Mu. So I'm throwing that out there. It's small.(refactored sorry. sloppy editing) But given its history I think it's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Although I support keeping Alpha Beta Alpha, I don't see how the organization could be as large as Beta Phi Mu given that ABA has only one active chapter and BPM has about 40 active chapters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:::My mistake. I didn't adjust my comments properly. It's not. It's one chapter as you note. Sorry about the consfusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2009 (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.