Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma 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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gamma Omega[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A brief article concerning Alpha Gamma Omega, "Christian Fraternity starts CU chapter" appeared in the Rocky Mountain News on August 31, 1996. Chuck (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alpha Gamma Omega is an active fraternity with many living and deceased alumni. There is no reason it should be deleted. The article contains factual information about the organization and fulfills all the the requirements wikipedia demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylepetz (talk • contribs) 17:13, 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) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and make nominator subject to wikipedia hazing rituals involving greased turkeys.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 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]
Weak Keep - No cited references. Tagged with the request for references. If in a month the references are not forthcoming, I will re-nominate the article as we are supposed to have researched and cited articles. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 12 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.