Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Kappa Phi Gamma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable sorority. Very small, no real national presence; only 5 chapters nationwide, not recognized by National Panhellenic Conference or any national Greek umbrella organization affiliation. Fails general notability guideline and WP:ORG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as organization appears to be national in scope with 5 chapters and 9 colonies. Activity of organization does get some coverage by reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how a 115 word blurb, that without a byline, and is probably a copy and paste job from a press release, signals "significant coverage in reliable sources."--GrapedApe (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete without prejudice to re-creation later. This article is almost entirely unsourced, the only sources cited are not independent, and much of the content is promotional rather than encyclopedic. That said, however, if it is possible to write a better article about this organization based on reliable independent sources, that should be allowed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the article as it stands is poor, but it would be better to improve it instead of removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducknish (talk • contribs)
 * Will you be the one to improve it? Which sources will you use?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:57, 22 January 2013 (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.