Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Lambda 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 Result was keep. Although it is true that any contested, unsourced information could be removed, the result stub could still be saved from deletion by demonstration of existing sources, and the sources provided during the AfD have not been contested. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Lambda Omega[edit]

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:11, 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) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 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]
Delete - References request has been on the article since January 2008. If references could not be found in that point there's not a lot we can do. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google has revealed several news articles and several books (that are not yearbooks) which could be used for referencing. Just because the unreferenced cleanup tag has been there for a while does not mean that those sources do not exist, just that no one's cared enough to go looking. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And conversely, Wikipedia works on articles which are sourced. Raising the unsourced argument is a shortcut for removing the unsourced items and then nominating for deletion. Still not an argument for keeping. Hasteur (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes it is. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you should disparage my opinion. The lack or nonexistance of reliable secondary sources is a key indicator of lack of notability, which would mean that an article should be deleted. The existence of aforementioned sources indicates that the article does in fact have the notability, and "sourcability", necessary to merit an article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although 14 chapters is sometimes borderline for a fraternity, it exists in several different states. I think we'd need some serious attempt at WP:BEFORE before concluding there are no sources available. It's established that the criterion is sourceable, not just unsourced. This is one of a group of indiscriminately reckless nominations,; although a few of them turn out to be appropriate for deletion, I do not think we should delete anything borderline nominated as part of this group. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 18 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.