Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Phi Beta


 * 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   keep. SarahStierch (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Phi Beta

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable organization, lack of sufficient reliable third-party sources to establish notability RHSN (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep there might be a number of student and/or LGBT publications used as references but they are independent of the subject and are reliable enough to establish the notability of the society. Others like WRTV are definitely reliable mainstream news sources. NtheP (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It is very difficult for a 2 chapter fraternity to be sufficiently notable for a standalone article, and I do not believe that these sources are sufficient.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd removed this from WP:PROD after a quick web search found at least half a dozen good sources, which I added to the page. That doesn't tell me whether they're notable because they're LGBT - but there is enough coverage in mainstream media to indicate they're notable. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep based on provision of reliable sourcing. While this is a relatively new organization, it has had sufficient "independent" "third-party" media sources to qualify as notable. (There is no gay cabal connecting all gay people together AFAIK.) --Lquilter (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sigma Phi Beta is a new organization that is currently expanding, it has had numerous media sources showing they are notable. together AFAIK.) Jjdavis84 (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - "New" and "currently expanding" does not prove notability. The independent and reliable sources do. There are enough that (IMO) this article would tip its head above water into the notability category. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 18:39, 13 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.