Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech Alumni Association


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus in any direction here, and merger discussion can be continued on the talk page. Speaking as an editor, I can't see any need to use the deletion tool here in any case, if consensus develops that this should not be its own article, a merger would be far more in line with deletion policy than a deletion. Courcelles 23:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Alumni Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Articles fails WP:GNG even after the sources were added. The sources are routine news stories which mention the alumni association, but do not go into depth. TM 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources added by Dravecky demonstrate sufficient notability for the organization. Would not necessarily oppose merging to a section of the main university article, but that wouldn't be a matter for AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as article easily crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. Sources added barely scratch the surface of at least 90 years of sustained coverage in respected reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you say that? I couldn't access most of the articles you linked to and the ones I could were purely routine. If you can show that those articles you have are more than routine coverage, please do.--TM 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Boston Globe offers routine coverage of the alumni associations of Georgia universities? - Dravecky (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources you cite are self-published or trivial mentions, including Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech: A Centennial History of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association. If an a person publishes their own autobiography, that doesn't make them notable.--TM 12:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That book was already cited in the article before I ever laid eyes on it. I added only on-subject articles from reliable third-party sources where the organization or its activities were the primary focus of the article. - Dravecky (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Insufficient notability and content to justify separate article.  Would be a good section in List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni.  --GrapedApe (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've taken some effort to elaborate on the organization's history and notability in the article, complete with in-line references to independent sources. It would be particularly helpful if I owned a copy of Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech: A Centennial History of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association; alas, I do not. To give you an idea of the impact that the organization has: without the association, the school would have trouble procuring funds to continue operating due to low levels of financial support from the Georgia Board of Regents and the Georgia General Assembly. This assistance was particularly important in the 1930s (Greater Georgia Tech Campaign) and the 1950s (Roll Call). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to either List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni or Georgia Institute of Technology (a paragraph or so, maybe a section, would suffice). An alumni association just like thousands of others. As TM says, coverage exists but there is not significant or detailed coverage in reliable, third-party independent sources. Neutralitytalk 04:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:ORG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:04, 12 November 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.