Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Rho Eta


 * 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. The sources presented are not convincing proof of notability but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete at this point. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Phi Rho Eta

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable local fraternity, with less than 9 chapters. Not recognized by any national umbrella organization. No evidence of any notable achievements by fraternity. Fails WP:GNG: no evidence of coverage in third party sources. GrapedApe (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Local would indicate a single campus, not one with that many chapters. Additional news articles have been added to wikipedia article.Naraht (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 
 * Having only 9 chapters and no affiliation with a national umbrella organization does make it local. All the sources are student newspapers or facebook, which hardly seem to demonstrate "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", per WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Facebook ref replaced.Naraht (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. This organization does exist at multiple universities and so I would be inclined to consider it to be notable enough to meet WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not based on some arbitrary number of chapters; it is based on significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Even a single-chapter fraternity could be notable if it meets this test; a dozen-chapter fraternity which does not have such coverage is not. No significant independent sources are given at the article, and a Google News Archive search found only passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure if I specifically voted above or not.00:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Some sources: -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 of those 4 reference are university sources, which, while they are reliable sources are not indications of notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:GNG do you think it fails?Naraht (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (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.