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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable oganization WuhWuzDat 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:N and WP:ORG. National fraternity from the 19th century with 21+ chapters in a number of different states. Listed in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, the authoritative encyclopedia for fraternities. That the fraternity is no longer active is immaterial: notability is forever--GrapedApe (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)duplicate vote stricken. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following two comments were left at a duplicate discussion thread, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma (2nd nomination).

• Keep as this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'll say something different this time. There needs to be procedural keeps right down the line for this entire mass of highly disruptive drive by shootings of Alpha-BLANK-BLANK fraternity and sorority articles. This sort of wanton article destruction, apparently taken on a whim, judging by the lack of research and argument backing each nomination, should not be rewarded. Nor should anyone have to put three seconds into defending disruptive challenges such as these from deletion. This is an exercise in encyclopedia-wrecking, in my opinion, from a self-described "semi-retired" Wikipedia editor. I would hope that some administrator steps in shortly to rein in this ill-considered onslaught. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied comments. The second thread has been closed as a duplicate. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• REWRITE - Article consists of very carefully worded paraphrases from 2 paragraphs in the only source for the article. Supporters are strongly reminded that we need multiple reliable sources so as to prevent questions of copyright infringement. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (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.