Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Phi Gamma


 * 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. I'm ignoring both the nom, and the keep votes based on nothing more than the nature of the nomination. Striking all that, we have a delete consensus. Courcelles 07:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Gamma

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable organization Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, no evidence of notability given. Now APG, the national journalism fraternity, might be notable enough for an article... http://www.scj.us/back2.shtml --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The national journalism fraternity of the same name, organized in 1919, also needs an article. This needs to be a procedural KEEP here, however. Admittedly this group, organized in 1994, would be the hardest to defend on notability grounds. We should not be encouraging drive-by article slaughters. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from using prejudicial words such as "drive-by" and "slaughter". Evaluate the article on the same standards you'd use for others and you'll see that the article is below the bar. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer AUTOMATED and BAD-FAITH? You're welcome to those as well. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep along with all of the other cut and paste noms. RasputinAXP  03:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss   ☎  12:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article's references are not in presence and reads like a brochure handed out during orientation. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Delete per SarekOfVulcan above. The journalism fraternity much more merits an article. This APG doesn't seem to have any reliable secondary sources to be found. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely no coverage of this smallish sorority found. It's apparently much less notable than the journalism fraternity of the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.    DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If kept, the name should be changed to Alpha Phi Gamma (sorority) to distinguish it from the journalism fraternity- which, although it does not currently have an article, would certainly qualify for one. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 19 April 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.