Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Phi Epsilon (2nd nomination)


 * 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. v/r - TP 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Epsilon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable fraternity. Moray An Par (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  Moray An Par (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete per N. The article has a serious need for references, I searched online for references and couldn't find literally anything except the group's website. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. More discussion is needed in order to determine if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure this should have been kept last time around (or, at least, I'm surprised to read some of the opinions expressed). I can't find any reliable sources covering it in any significant detail (or, really, any detail at all). The GNews archive results referenced in the last AfD don't include anything like actual coverage of this organization, or, erm, coverage of this actual organization, as far as I can tell, and I'm not getting the "plainly notable" assertions present there, either. Others searching for references should be very careful to review the results Google uncovers to make sure they are actually about the organization described in this article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On that note, the links to information provided in the previous nomination actually pertain to a different organization with the same name. Moray An Par (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep - Oh, goody, back to the ALPHA+BLANK+BLANK fraternity and sorority challenges with brilliantly expressed rationale "Non-notable fraternity." Is the nominator familiar with the previous problems we had with the previous onslaught of ALPHA+BLANK+BLANK nominations? Did the nominator observe WP:BEFORE? Does the nominator have more than 3 words to say about why this article should be removed from Wikipedia instead of being tagged for improvement? Carrite (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion by way of an actual reason to keep the article? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SNOWBALL we must first determine if this is even worth doing any improvement. If you did do researching on the topic, you can find that this article does not meet WP:SNG, in which case it seems that you didn't. Voting for keeping it because of what you see as a poorly written nomination rather than actually researching on it is not a valid argument. IMHO, it's a blatant expression of how bureaucracy can run counter building consensus. Moray An Par (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I put more work into asking if the nominator followed WP:BEFORE than the nominator did in explaining why this article merits deletion. Somehow there is a mentality that nominations don't need to have research or effort behind them, but defenses do. After the abusive, automation-assisted attack of over 100 ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternities and sororities (see the AN/I archives for details), you're damned right that I'm gonna be fussy and bitchy about somebody rolling out a zero effort nomination of an ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternity or sorority. And no, I'm not gonna do five minutes of research to defend from a five second nomination. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up on this a bit more, because your attitude and reaction is mystifying to me.
 * The article has been tagged for improvement since 2008. I think that's why it "should be removed instead of being tagged for improvement."
 * "Non-notable" is a very clear explanation of the reason for deletion. The nominator also makes clear in followup comments that he's done some research, as do two other delete votes (myself and SwisterTwister). You make clear from your own comments that not only have you not done any research to back up your position, you are unwilling to do so. As such, I am stumped as to why you think anybody, let alone an administrator reviewing this discussion, should ascribe any weight or merit to your opinion, and I am further stumped as to why you think the efforts you've put in to not supplying a keep rationale somehow trump somebody at least giving a rationale for deletion.
 * WP:BURDEN -- which is Wikipedia policy -- places the burden on the person adding or arguing for the inclusion of content to find sourcing for that content. I am sorry you disagree with this "mentality" but, again, that is Wikipedia policy. Find some sourcing to back up your keep contentions, and I will happily change my vote.
 * The past mass-deletion issue is basically irrelevant. Its only similarity is that it affected the same topic, but as long as this is not part of another mass-deletion issue, I fail to see how bringing that up makes your case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.