Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Phi 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Epsilon[edit]

A fraternity which is different from all the others because er.... er... actually it is the same as all the others. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be abundant coverage of this group (or others with the same name) at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without referring specifically to this fraternity or the others in this batch of nominations, I would like to point out that fraternities sometimes become particularly notable because of misconduct by their members or the organizations because of hazing, alcohol abuse or related issues. Fraternities aren't all the same: some emphasize the idea of service to the community and others emphasize partying. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And here's coverage of a presumably unrelated group with the same name in The New York Times: BURN BOY AT INITIATION.; Students Set Fire to Alcohol Used by Mistake for Witch Hazel. The New York Times. December 23, 1911, Saturday -- Eastmain (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs massive clean-up and referencing, but appears notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs references, but is notable. Majoreditor (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep if it can actually be deciphered what the group is--not all the chapters seem to be at colleges, and the text of the article does not seem to ay anything substantial in a clear manner. This one needs some real sources. DGG (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2008 (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.