Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma 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 Delete no demonstrated notability, not independant reliable sources Viridae ^Talk 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Beta

Article about an Asian interest fraternity? Since when did we start to have these. Anyways, tagged per WP:NOT. UzEE!! 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, no WP:RS. JJL (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing wrong with having an article about an Asian interest fraternity. There is something wrong with having an article about a local fraternity, per WP:ORG, with no independent reliable sources -- but that's what this is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tagged per WP:NOT? WP:NOT is a fairly lengthy policy, which specific part are you referring to? This nomination is poorly formed, and not exactly made in good faith, as the nominator opened with "Article about an Asian interest fraternity? Since when did we start to have these" as their primary reason for deleting. I don't entirely agree with keeping this article, per WP:ORG under notability of local non-commercial organizations, so if this is to proceed it should be re-nominated under that criteria, not under the nominators clearly stated bias against Asian-interest fraternities. If that can't be done, then I say keep until a properly formed AFD can be done. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have to agree with Justinm1978. There is way to many poorly formed AfD Nomination Statements, to allow to allow even 1 to go unchallenged is condoning deletionism. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, what should be done to keep this from deletion? I really don't understand what's wrong with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.242.142 (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue, to my mind, is the lack of evidence of notability. Has this been covered in a newspaper or magazine article? How can we verify that what's in it is accurate? The requirement of notability helps draw the line between a fraternity with hundreds of chapters and a group of kids who named the house they're renting (which happens). JJL (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fraternity is registered with the University of Texas at Austin and currently working on making a bigger name for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzer8 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a registered student organization does not establish notability, especially for a local organization with only one chapter. I really suggest putting something up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities for help on clarifying, as we have generally established that local orgs are not notable enough for their own wikipage. Justinm1978 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.