Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Psi Lambda

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. Courcelles 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Psi Lambda

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 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) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has been lacking sources since July 2007. Article has not gained said sources. Perhaps the pro-forma supporters will find the necessary sources before the delete ends. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 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]
This AfD was closed administratively and re-opened (we don't disrupt process to make a point). Discuss the article's merits here. Hasteur (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This national Latino-interest Fraternity is still active in many campuses around the country. Members are in the process of updating this page. Please refer to www.alphapsilambda.net for more information about this active organization. ☎ 10:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) --[reply]
You are aware that we can't use the organization's own website to demonstrate the notability and fill in the information necessary per WP:PRIMARY? Hasteur (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough; national fraternity; sources available [1] [2] [3]. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first and third of the sources offered by MelanieN. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major organization on a national scale, The nom should indeed have been closed and not reopened, for it is very much an example of the recklessness of the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 19 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.