Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orgt


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Orgt

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Student organization that isn't independently notable. Could possibly merge to Georgia Tech article if there's enough notable content. Shadowjams (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Distinct flavor of WP:SPAM.  It's not right-out promotional, so no speedy for this one - but its bent is to promote the organization. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Editing now so that it is neither "spam" nor "promotional"Skolk (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the Orgt on spam grounds. No way such info can be included in a way that complies with WP:SPAM. Delete the rest on notability grounds. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this not notable it has a history, and a berth of background information,Dartmouth Outing Club is the same thing, going over WP:SPAM Now, to comply -Skolk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skolk (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can the history and the background information be verified from third-party reliable sources? Is the organization the subject of significant third-party coverage? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 14:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for pointing me in this direction, I'll attribute sources asap
 * Delete No evidence of notability from third party sources. No reason for this to be a free-standing article. Might belong as a sentence in the Georgia Tech article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article creator Skolk (contribs) is a SPA for this article. Grey Wyvern ⚒ 18:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of notability. Not been given significant coverage by reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No apparent notability. Not enough (or any really) significant coverage. If author is a WP:SPA, s/he probably has a WP:COI, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  21:08, 13 November 2009 (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.