Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Sigma Kappa

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 on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Kappa[edit]

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So because we are "non notable" we need to be deleted? I'm sorry if I don't completely understand the rational behind this. The organization has been around for well over 20 years and is still fully active. alpha-sigma-kappa.org is out of date, but we are working to fix that. I am more than willing to work with others who are well versed in Wikipedia to clean this page up and make it fit within the guidelines better. Page Owner Ask bm001 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)ask_bm001[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) 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced minor sorority. No major claims of notability which hold this out as a group that warrants inclusion in WP. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 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, random non-notable sorority; unreferenced. As I have cast a good-faith delete !vote, this is no longer eligible for speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ since I can't find any Google News or Google Books coverage of this sororitiy (although I do find coverage of an earlier sorority in the1930s-1950s). I would love to keep this article since it is a national organization with multiple chapters but I just can't find the sourcing required. To Ask bm001: here is where you can find out what we are talking about: Wikipedia's criteria explain how anything or anybody has to meet "notability" criteria to have an article here. That has nothing to do about whether it exists or not, or whether it is a good thing or not; it is simply a requirement that outside, independent reliable sources have taken note of it and written about it. That's what I was looking for and didn't find. If we can find some truly independent sourcing about this organization, I will be glad to help you add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote to Weak Keep based on DGG's reasoning below. This article would probably never have been nominated for deletion in the normal course of things. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the number of chapters is borderline, but it's in several states. As I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless nomination. This is not a "random" organization, but one specifically devoted to the special situation of women in science. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 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.