Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers

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

No evidence of notability; I prodded it in 2011, but just noticed the prod was removed by the original editor. . DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability very doubtful for a single chapter of a student organization. References are in the school paper, organs of the parent organization, and two articles in the local paper, one of which is very passing. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per WP: GNG. It's not notable and the school paper is not a reliable source. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of WP:N The references are secondary. --Artene50 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and lack of independent third-party sources. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly it fails GNG as, per Artene, all references are secondary, so it cannot demonstrate notablity as such. Also, as it has 8 sources covering a single statement, there probably won't be more sources to add. Regards. —Hahc 21 15:36, 8 July 2012 (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.