Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma Nu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. postdlf (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alpha Gamma Nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider Assuming good faith with nominations as you would assume others assume good faith with you. Hasteur (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Carrite, except I can't assume bad faith when it could be just lack of WP:COMPETENCE. WWD can take his pick, for all I care; they are both critical flaws. You weren't to know, necessarily, but WWD does this routinely, most recently making a score of nominations each with only the words, "non notable former model". All but one of those were Kept, I believe. Anarchangel (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As a local fraternity (single chapter), it does not not appear to meet the criteria and general standards for notability of fraternities and sororities. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a local club with 28 members and no outside coverage whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 28 members at a single university does not qualify this as a notable organization. Single reference on article is to the listing of fraternaties on the campus. Hasteur (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, local clubs are not notable as a general rule, and no evidence has been given that this is an exception.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Of course not. There are already more than enough good faith, substantial delete arguments here to demonstrate that the AfD has merit, whatever the motivations of the original nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Old enough to qualify for notablity even as a single campus fraternityNaraht (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per reasoning of C.Fred above. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of lack of the significant coverage in multiple sources required to show notability. Of the keep !votes so far, none seem valid. "Speedy keep" because of faults of the nominator became invalid as soon as the first good faith delete !vote came in. Keep because it's old enough to be notable is, well, just not how it works, age doesn't give automatic notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:54, 14 April 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.