Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Mu Sigma

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Mu Sigma[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No significant coverage that indicate notability. Claimed awards cannot be found in independent sources. The awards themselves may not grant the topic notability since they are non-notable and very minor themselves. Moray An Par (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Find some sources for notability and the claimed awards, simple. If there are none, then renominate for AfD. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is as if you assume that those awards grant the organization notability. Those awards are not notable themselves, so why should its recipients be automatically notable? Assuming the list in the article is true, three of them are from the university, and two from the local city government. Searching "Ten Most Outstanding Organizations of Manila", "Ten Most Outstanding Organizations" Manila, and "Most Outstanding Organizations" Manila all give Beta Mu Sigma published sources. Moray An Par (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't necessarily saying the awards say it is notable. I was saying find some for the place itself being notable, and, but separately, find some for the award claims. Rcsprinter (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, searching for them didn't return any useful results. Moray An Par (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment When the nomination says "No significant coverage that indicate notability" and "Claimed awards cannot be found in independent sources", I think it's fair to assume that the nominator has already looked for sources that would demonstrate notability. The point of the discussion is to determine whether or not the topic is notable now, not just close it as keep because it might be notable and then open another discussion afterwards. If someone thinks an article should be kept, they are allowed to look for supporting sources themselves and add them to the article. In fact, it's quite a good idea. :) --Beloved Freak 09:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve on an iPhone (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. The burden of proof rests on him/her, not the others. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable organization. Nominator's statement is pretty accurate. Dissenting voice above demands people find a way to prove a negative, which is about as fallacious as it gets. Badger Drink (talk) 06:07, 17 July 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.