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 speedy delete, as the article's creator is a sock of a long-term blocked user. This is not a statement on the subject's notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Poindexter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability really isn't established here. The article tries to claim that Poindexter was a founder of Alpha Phi Alpha, but at best, he was involved in organizing the group that became Alpha Phi Alpha, which doesn't qualify him as a founder. I suspect there's some POV issues here, related to a long-running feud on the Alpha page and a few other articles on African-American fraternities. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, it has become apparent that User:2Cold06, the article's creator and primary editor, is a sockpuppet of indef-blocked user Mykungfu, and I have blocked 2Cold06 indefinitely on that basis. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Nomination (1) The article states: "In March of 1906, the name Alpha Phi Alpha was informally adopted as designation of the group", and that Poindexter did not resign until December 1906. By the article, Poindexter was the originator of the group which became the Frat and was involved in the organization of the Frat, albeit in opposition, but none the less potentially notable. --Kevin Murray 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on Nomination (2)The nominator "suspect(s)" a POV issue is a breach of WP policy of assuming good faith, and is unduly prejudicial toward the author, as NPOV is not a reason for AfD. --Kevin Murray 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Per nominator's proof of sockpuppetry I remove this comment. However, I still think that the article should sink or swim on its own merits, not the misbehavior of the author --Kevin Murray 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on Nomination (1) I am going to have to agree with and reitterate the lined out comment by 20:55, 7 January 2007 Kevin Murray [1] The nominator "suspect(s)" a POV issue is a breach of WP policy of assuming good faith, and is unduly prejudicial toward the author, as NPOV is not a reason for AfD. Additional rationale is for tagging my account on this AFD [2] leaving a comment here as well for an administrative notice board that had nothing to do with the topic at hand [3] about 2 minutes later. CarmenBryan 06:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In the official fraternity history book, The history of Alpha Phi Alpha, a development in in Negro College life by Charles Wesleym 6th printing copyright 1929,1950. Charles C Poindexter is mentioned on pages 24,26,28,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,39,41,42, and 43 (please note that pages 1-23 are introductory concerning US history).

On page 41 it specifically states "CC Poindexter deserves special mention. Without his serious and eager leadership, it is probably that the fraternal organization would have advanced more slowly. he was the moving spirit in teh literary organization which served as the predecessor of the fraternity. He acted as president of the group and continued in office during the formation of the early policies and also through the first initiation in Alpha Phi Alpha society."

On page 43, it states "the seventh place among the Jewels, has been in dispute for some time. Mr Poindexter has been suggested for the place"

"CC Poindexter is credited as being the man who brought together the group that would be known as Alpha Phi Alpha." -- Skip Mason 12min 11 second PBS documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WizAq0EuDUk

CC Poindexter is mentioned repeatedly in references and sources that were utilized by article Alpha Phi Alpha including Mason, Herman "Skip" [1997] (1999). The Talented Tenth,Wesley, Charles H. [1929] (1950). The History of Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Phi Alpha "A Century of Leadership" PBS Video, Alphi Phi Alpha Fraternity, Mu Nu Chapter, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Alpha Chapter.

The first meeting of Alpha Phi Alpha literary group took place at his residence of 421 North Albany St, Ithaca, New York. - page 27 The history of Alpha Phi Alpha.

CC Poindexter's place is akin to that of the 13 colonies and their relation to the United States. Simply read the article, look at the sources (watch the video link), there is no POV pushing, but simply a short bio of the role one man played in the planting the seed, and developing a group that became the first intercollegiate black fraternity in america, Alpha Phi Alpha. 2Cold06 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to predict that there will be deletion requests from Users:Ccson, Robotam, and Bearly541. The rationale behind this may not be entirely transparent or utilizing good faith. 2Cold06 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG, I'm not against an article if it contains brilliant prose, contain a NPOV, etc, however; this does not. It's written in the same sloppy and hurried way as Sigma Pi Phi and the now defunct Alpha Kappa Nu that you wrote with the only purpose to attack Alpha Phi Alpha. The only thing that can be attibuted to Poindexter regarding Alpha Phi Alpha is that he hosted the meeting where some of the others may have met for the first time. It's clear he fought against a fraternity from the outset, did nothing to help with its subsequent formation, and resigned once his own intentions were defeated.--Ccson 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep (1) I am not satisfied with the premise of the nomination. (2) after reading the g-hits I am convinced that there is notability as there is a recognized controversy over Poindexter's role in the forming of APA. As the first black frat. APA is clearly notable, and a controversial figure from the inception seems to be notable, especially since the controversy is ongoing. I see plenty of solid reference material at the site. However, I think the article need some rewriting and balance to the POV. --Kevin Murray 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Nomination (1)The article should stand on its own merits if it has any good merits, but it's clearly written from a biased POV, misquoted and distorted information, and the author has been repeatedly told that he was banned as a user, yet he continues to appear with the sole purpose of causing the same disruption his other sockpuppet ids caused.

Having said that, the user is only providing parts of the quotes to satisfy his POV. For example, when he states above "On page 43, it states "the seventh place among the Jewels, has been in dispute for some time. Mr Poindexter has been suggested for the place". He conveniently omits the final part of the sentence "but as noted above he was not in sympathy with the Fraternity plan. I ask, how can someone who vehmently objected to the formation of a Fraternity be considered a founder; when he clearly wanted no part of the group. Page 29 staes the orginal seven were members who were part of the both the social study club and the fraternity, and Poindexter never wanted to be a member of the fraternity.

The article in incorrect regarding the date of March 1906 to become a fraternity; it was on december 23, 1906 the name Alpha Phi Alpha society was chosen, and it wasn't until December 4, 1906 that the decison was made to become a Fraternity. Poindexter was not present for the December meeting, but resgined upon learning the group was now a fraternity.

My final comment is I don't care if the article remains, but who will volunteer for the research, rewriting and balanced POV that the article needs since this user is banned, has displayed a tendency to distort the obvious truth, biased POV, and has repeated rejected Mason, removed his references in other articles, and now wants to quote him only when he says something the user agrees with but again, he only prints the parts he wants and distorts the context and information, (biased)?--Ccson 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep CCson, your dates seem to be a bit confusing. If a fraternity was founded on Dec 4, 1906, why was the name chosen almost 3 weeks later? I did some research and found on page 182 of African American Fraternities And Sororities: The Legacy And The Vision edited by Tamara L. Brown, Gregory S. Parks, Clarenda M. Phillips, [4] it states that "Callis was credited with coming up with the name Alpha Phi Alpha, which was adopted informally at a meeting in March 1906, and formally approved on May 23. Advertising themselves as "A Phi A." the group sponsored a dance before the close of the spring semester. During the following school year, 1906-1907, the idea of a fraternity took on a more definitive shape. Minutes from the October 27, 1906, meeting of the society show that the members again voted on the name Alpha Phi Alpha, this time acknowledging a more fraternal influece by stating, "henceforth the group [will] be known by these three greek letters." It also states on page 182 that CC Poindexter served as president of this group when it was unnamed. It follows on page 182 that CC Poindexter in November 6, 1906 when it was named Alpha Phi Alpha. This would give CC Poindexter the distinction of being the first president of Alpha Phi Alpha. CarmenBryan 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — CarmenBryan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Heads up all, the prior user CarmenBryan is just another sockpuppet of MyFungFu, 2Cold06, etc. The user id was created on Jan 7, 2006 and someone find there way to a delete request to provide an opion, and just happens to have a copy of the very book (on the nightstand at midnight) that the banned user references to respond to my comment. I wil however respond to his comment.

First of all, "informally" is not "officially", otherwise there would have been no need to vote on it again during the 1906/07 school year. In fact, the group was organized in 1905-06, so they could really could have said the goup was founded in 1905 even though it remained unnamed for almost a year, but the Alpha Phi Alpha history book states they chose the founding day when the group was offically voted to becme a fraternity, Dec 4, 1906. I have provided the references in the Alpha Phi Alpha article regarding the name for Alpha Phi Alpha Society "offically" on November 23, 1906, of which Poindexter would have been the president of the "Society", however; the decison to become a fraternity and the name Alpha Phi Alpha Fraterntiy was made on December 4, 1906 without Poindexter present and against his wishes and he resigned upon learning the news.--Ccson 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccson, I'm not sure where you received your information from, but aren't we suppossed to assume good faith? I don't have a copy of any book. I am not any type of sockpuppet, so i'd appreciate an apology. As I stated before, I went to this link http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0813123445&id=yfTYV_H2XoEC&pg=RA1-PA182&lpg=RA1-PA182&ots=eomwE1p32N&dq=cc+poindexter&sig=Cri-4O1YKyK2IQZASfGPwRUgDD0 which I gave a reference to. If you look above you stated December 23, 1906 and in your latter comment you state November 23, 1906. Your dates seemed off so I did a research on google and gave specific quotes from a book where you can see the specific quote on google. From the reading, Poindexter didn't resign upon learning the news on the day of the founding of the fraternity. CarmenBryan 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccson, informally and officially.. informally (March 1906).. officially (May 23) reaffirmed (oct 27, 1906) from the book African American Fraternities And Sororities: The Legacy And The Vision [5] . So i'm wondering where did you get Dec 23, 1906? I was also wondering when you stated "request to provide an opion" what is an opion? I had no luck finding this word in the dictionary. Please clarify this for me. CC Poindexter was the first president of the greek letter organization named Alpha Phi Alpha. He did not continue on this role when it became known as the greek letter fraternity known as Alpha Phi Alpha. CarmenBryan 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the link, however; it stated that pages 183-210 are not a part this review, so how do you know what's contained on page 183 where it would mention November 6. I should have said October 23 was the day the name Alpha Phi Alpha Society was chosen, and December 4 was the day a vote was taken to become a fraterntiy. But, the dates in your reference are in direct conflict with Alpha PHi Alpha history book. Please review the Alpha Phi Alpha article where it provides a reputable and veriiable reference for the events that took place on October 23 and December 4 of 1906. Plus, how did you find your way to this AFD, then search the web and come back with an opinion on the AFD that was added the very day you became a wikipedian, learn how to provide links, have the wherewithall to mention "good faith", all in just over 24 hours of becoming a wikipedian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you look up CC Poindexter on the link you can actually view page 183. One of the writers of the book is Gregory Pecks who on page 2 is listed as a member of Alpha Phi Alpha. I have serious doubts he would give false information concerning his fraternity. The book also isn't a highly biased source which may be the case of the history of alpha phi alpha. I don't see why this book wouldn't be considered to be a good source. So now you're saying that the date is October 23rd but this is in conflict with Oct 27th reaffirmation and the May 23rd 1906 formal adoption. I've given you a glance of an actual page so you can go over this if you like. Ccson, becoming a member of Wikipedia and reading wikipedia and learning its rules are 2 very different things. CarmenBryan 07:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, no real opinion here, but I urge that one of the interest parties who are opining that this should be kept clean the article up. There may be valuable content here, but you couldn't tell from looking at the article in its current state.--Isotope23 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But reduce to a one line stub. We shouldn't encourage banned used to add content and we can keep a notable article but rebuild it from scratch. --Spartaz 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would strongly support that recommendation, particularly after spending a bit more time reading through this article. 90+% of this article isn't based on anything I would consider to be reliable 3rd party sources and that is a huge problem. Not a reason for deletion, but certainly reason for busting this back to a stub and watching the article...--Isotope23 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see also the discussion at ANI about the sockpuppet issue. Spartaz 17:58, 8 January 2007 (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.