Deletion of Kappa Sigma

Comment: The key issue is whether the fraternity is a notable organization and should have an article. The answer to that is yes. I cannot, in good conscience, !vote to delete the article.That said, there's no reason not to subject the full content of the article to the |verifiability rules. If something is alleged to be a secret meaning, but no reliable, previously-published source is furnished to verify it, it should be stricken from the article. It may even be reasonably subject to redaction under RD#3 of |the revision deletion policy: attempting to "out" the organization's alleged secrets is clearly an attempt to disrupt the article. (If it weren't, we wouldn't be in this AfD.)Finally, I agree with Rivertorch about the Streisand effect. Had the article merely been reverted quietly, we wouldn't know whether the claims had any truth to them or were bogus claims about secrets. The requester has effectively announced to the world that whatever the material in the article was—and I don't feel the need to go peeking to see what exactly it is—it's authentic secrets of the fraternity. (And that raises a curious contradiction: why are we removing material as "secret" if it's been revealed as valid by a member of the organization
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:REVDEL)

Comment: For the past year at least, sourced info has been repeatedly removed from the article, justified by it being something that is intended as secret and not for public disclosure. This request seems to be another means to that end. Clearly doing so would go against : "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)