Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Beta Iota
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. (X! · talk) · @245 · 04:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Omega Beta Iota
- Omega Beta Iota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod was declined by an administrator. One source was subsequently added, but as a blog it does not qualify as a
existence. Google returns nothing of value either. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete per well-explained nom. Good faith searches confirm it exists but are unable to suggest a reason why it is more notable than any other fraternity. (See ]
- While a BLOG, it it owned and operated by the Executive Director of the American Osteopathic Association. It is a new organization, but is key for medical residency directors researching its importance when evaluating incoming physicians. There are other entries in the medical fraternities that have similar levels of interest but are used nonetheless.
Similar articles: Gold Humanism Honor Society no references; --Bouspret (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gold Humanism article has problems too and maybe should also be nominated; see independent sources explaining the importance and notability of the organisation, and summarise those sources within the article. Currently the article reads, essentially, as "Omega Beta Iota is a group, that has membership preconditions." - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gold Humanism article has problems too and maybe should also be nominated; see
- Delete Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (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.