Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Sigma Rho


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigma Sigma Rho

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organisation. No cited references after more than two years of being tagged as such. No evidence of notability.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I cannot find any coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I am presuming, for the moment, that student newspapers (ie in universities) do not count as reliable; if somebody could convince me that they are in fact reliable, this would look very different. Catfish Jim, I presume the same rationale could be applied to many of the other fraternities and sororities in the template at the bottom of the article? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - there appear to be material in books. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where those search results are related to this subject (and not search engine artifacts), the coverage is trivial and does not satisfy WP:GNG.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; the keep-voter's search link demonstrates that there's no significant coverage in solid sources. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (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.