Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alpha Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Alpha Phi Omega

Notability

 * Comment: I am sorry but i do not see why this entry would be deleted simply because it is non-notable. to me and my brothers it is very notable. i have put in a lot of time into this entry in hopes that the chapter can use it in spreading it's ideals of friendship leadership and service. it would also be a good resource to those interested in joining our organization, and to those new to our chapter(pledges) for gaining information on our chapter history. also, seeing as how there are about 5 other chapter entries, steming from the mother APO entry i believe it is a good way to help model and set an example for future chapters that decide to make an entry. and what makes you think that we are none-notable, we had the VP of all of APO sitting at our chapters table at regionals this past weekend, on her own will, and she very much enjoyed it. not-notable, thanks for the slap in the face. so i ask you to please let our humble wikipedia entry stay in existance. at least we are a legitimate wikipedia entry unlike some of the other entries on your list, which you have deleted(the one before ours referring to mens penis'). ohh, another thing that makes us notable, is that our primary founder is one of the founding members of Beta Rho(Roger Stearns hes even in that picture), which is allowed to keep their entry. please respond and thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterbean04 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 October 2005
 * Comment: How do you determine if something is notable? This entry provides any person with a description and a idea of the Alpha Phi Omega Chapter at UTD. That in itself should be notatble to a larger audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by michael_654 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 October 2005
 * Comment: While the chapter may be notable to you and the other members, it should be notable to a larger audience to be included here. tregoweth  01:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: what mike_654 said

Hey Aaron, This is a really good idea! Kudos for thinking it up. As far as awards, put me down for pledge class namesake in Spring 2004 and DSK for Spring 2005. Good times! :) Stella (is it notable enough yet) I apologize if i sound like a jerk but this is something i believe in and many of my other brothers believe in. and it really is for the better.Butterbean04 02:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: if this thing would stop deleting my comments anytime i try to submit them you would see some really good points that i brought up. so as to save my time i am going to sumarize what i said. we have worked very hard to become who we are within the organization especially region 7(with whom we have an excellent rep. which is really good seeing as we are one of the youngest and also fastest growing chapters) also we(the chapters) can use these pages to help one another in expanding and thinking up new service projects (you'll note that we each have a SERVICE PROJECTS heading. after all our four fields of service are to the COMMUNITY, THE NATION, CHAPTER, AND TO THE CAMPUSES that our chapters reside on.Butterbean04 02:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: (sorry but this seems to be the only way to keep my points from getting lost when i submit them)also, i noticed that you have added all the other chapters that have made entries, these if you knew the history of APO are truely "notable" chapters of course if you read the entry than you would know that. isn't the point of wikipedia to educate people through a user-submitted database.Butterbean04 02:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * CommmentI was just emailed a letter from one of our chapter advisors who also happens to be on Section 41 staff it reads as follows:

Fraternity Membership of voters

 * May I ask on what basis are articles about these chapters being deleted ? To which fraternity do the delete voters belong ?  Is the nomination (are the nominations) being made from an NPOV ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but my vote is as NPOV as it gets and is based on the principle that no local chapter or any fraternity or sorority is notable in and of itself. I'd guess that most of the deletion voters are from people (myself included) that are well past the days where they would be involved in the fraternal system.  I don't think this is a concerted effort by any other frat to attack Alpha Phi Omega local chapters.  Assume good faith SockpuppetSamuelson --Isotope23 16:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good faith is one thing, but [to paraphrase] "to lose one parent is unfortunate, to nominate a series of pages on the same subject looks like 'carelessness'". IMHO --SockpuppetSamuelson 07:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

On WP:NOT

 * Comment: this is a good point that you have brought up^^^, which is why we have our very own shiny website www.apo-aez.org, this is an excellent way to share information with others, but if i were from another chapter say Alpha chapter (the very first one) and i weren't purposefully looking for our humble chapter. one way i could find INFO about it let alone know that it exists would be from this chapter wiki, which stems from the parent wiki.
 * Comment: well, if i lose this battle it was one hard fought. thanks for at least listening. after all we are just trying to better the country through being a service frat, unlike some social frats. thanks again for listening. btw loooooove wiki, haha saved my butt on soo many papers. ill just link to our real website on the UTD wiki.Butterbean04 03:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being WP:CIVIL about this process Butterbean04.--Isotope23 11:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On Fratcruft

 * Comment: By calling it "fratcruft" doesn't that mean that it inevitably sticks around??? I mean that is the definition of a cruft means regardless of it's worth or not it still sticks around....i think you should rethink when to properly use jargon. if anything just stick with calling it a non-notable local chapter of a national organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterbean04 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 October 2005
 * Well, "cruft" is Wikipedia jargon. See Fancruft. It does have a known meaning in Articles for Deletion debates, so in this context it's being used properly, in the sense that it's being used in a sense that the writer intends and many of the readers understand the same way. For Wikipedians to refer to articles dealing with overly detailed articles about narrow topics as "cruft" is no more illogical than for Alpha Phi Omegans to refer to women members as "brothers". --Metropolitan90 03:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that -cruft is widely considered a perjorative, and fraternity members calling each other brothers (including women) is an honorific. Please avoid its use for reasons of civility.   Un  focused  03:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You can ask all you want, and it's certainly not going to stop any of us from referring to it as cruft, because it is. By the way, it's pejorative. Maybe that's why people keep missing the point? RasputinAXP   talk  *  contribs  13:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the people I've asked have stopped doing so. You're the first to insist that it's not a good idea to be civil.   Un  focused  13:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)