Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Delta Alpha


 * 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, WP:NPASR. Deryck C. 22:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Delta Alpha

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG: no evidence of coverage in third party sources; very local fraternity, with fewer than 5 chapters; not recognized by any national umbrella organization GrapedApe (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 63.160.65.14 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC) - Evidence of third party source coverage will be provided; this is already flagged on the page needing citations. There are 9 chapters, and national umbrella org (formerly NALFO members but withdrew) is not needed to verify existence or notability. This is a biased criteria. For instance, Gamma Zeta Alpha has no references or citations, and very few, local chapters but is not marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.160.65.14 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, that other frat is recognized by National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations and has 20 chapters, which seems to make it sufficiently notable, but yes, it needs references, and it's been tagged as such since October 2009. I couldn't find any, and I doubt that they can be found.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 01:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is not temporary, a listing on the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations page notes that Sigma Delta Alpha exists and was once a member organization. Therefore, there is official national recognition of Sigma Delta Alpha, by NALFO but the membership is not current. As of the former edit, GZA only listed 9 chapters. The criteria on which this page was nominated for deletion was 'fewer than 5 chapters', which is incorrect, and 'not recognized by any national umbrella organization', which is also incorrect - Sigma Delta Alpha is recognized by, but not a member of NALFO. -- Robohh (talk)
 * Additional Notability with Source (This was one of only two Latino fraternities founded in the United States during the so-called fragmentation period from 1990-2000, and the third to ever be founded in California.[1]) -- Robohh (talk)
 * Edits have been made to correct major violations, the original reasoning is incorrect for deletion, and at least two sources added, with others forthcoming (many edits are being made to improve the page), and the page stands as a valuable source of information for interested parties in the Western United States. I vote KEEP as at least notable enough to exist within the context of the other greek organizations listed on Wikipedia. -- Robohh (talk)
 * One-off mentions in a pair of books doesn't satisfy the "Significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG: "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Those sources establish that the fraternity exists, for WP:V purposes, but not that it's notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the reason they are mentioned is notable, not the mention itself, that is only a verification of the reason. Certainly within the context of Wikipedia's existing coverage of Fraternities and Sororities in the United States, it is fair to say this article is not below-standard any longer. Robohh (talk) 20:45, 20 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 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest a no-consensus close Robohh (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You've already made your points 5 times, an admin will close this in due time.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input, I do believe each of my contributions was an informative or reasonable response to either arguments made or updates made to the page. I would like the see the matter closed. Thank you. Robohh (talk) 15:15, 22 August 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.