Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Lambda Psi

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. The keeps have it. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Lambda Psi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Declined Prod by author. Prod reason was "Single chapter fraternity that hasn't had any significant independent coverage." I contend that this is still valid as there is still only trivial coverage (a passing mention in a article about LGBT at a university overall, obligated listing in student directory, etc.) Hasteur (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. On its face, the subject strikes me as likely to be notable--its status as the only existing "gender-neutral queer-focused" fraternity distinguishes it from the run of the mill single-chapter frats whose articles are often deleted here. However, Hasteur is correct that there does not seem to be a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources. I did find (and added) an article from the University of Southern California's Daily Trojan that has a couple of sentences about this frat in the context of a longer article about a USC student's efforts to start a gay frat there--not an extensive discussion, but it does provide independent verification and shows that this frat is known outside of Santa Cruz.[1] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, noteworthy, educational, and has received some good coverage. — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The coverage adduced here and in the article itself is not sufficient to support an article on this single chapter fraternity. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arxiloxos and Cirt - this is at least marginally notable, but could use more citations. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Note: The "Attempting to form a chapter" at another university is WP:CRYSTAL in action and inappropriate for us to speculate on. There was a discussion several months ago regarding notability of small chapter count/membership count college-social-organizations. I may be incorrect, but most of them were simple self published sources and no independent claims of notability. Therefore until the subject gets talked about on diverse campuses (outside California) I'm still opposed to this article. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 22 November 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.