Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Phi Lambda (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Phi Lambda

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has been kept as recently as 2008, but WP:ORG is very different since them. I am unable to find independent, reliable source coverage to meet CORPDEPTH. It exists, but does not appear to be notable. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep I don't understand why this article has been tagged with this unnecessary AfD, after twice winning the argument. Notability does not diminish over time, according to WP rules. It's far more helpful to FIX apparent gaps in references versus rush to delete. I hope there is no animus against the few societies that emphasize Christianity, as the OP just PRODed two such Christian groups. About notability: Fraternal and Sorority groups normally reference the seminal reference on the subject, Baird's Manual, which over its 20 editions stretching back 150 years had adopted the rule that to be listed an organization must have formed at least three chapters, OR be a local that owns property, and exist for at least ten years. Sigma Phi Lambda clearly meets this standard. The Fraternity and Sorority Project has adopted that model as a reasonable bar to meet for those articles we edit, create and monitor, in keeping with WP guidelines. There have been tens of thousands of non-notable local chapters that do not merit an article, and approximately 1,500 that do, which get tracked by our Project. This particular group has chartered 43 chapters and is over 40 years old. It is extensively referenced in Baird's and noted on the official university portals where it has active chapters. It has a functional national headquarters and website. It certainly does not merit deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs)
- As I mentioned in the other discussion, that's not a speedy keep criteria and Baird's criteria has no bearing on Wikipedia's. after twice winning the argument certainly explains why you seem to be approaching these in such a manner. Our organizational notability guidelines have changed significantly in 14 years and just because something was kept doesn't guarantee future keeping. I'm going to ignore your ABF on the rest of this as I have no intention of getting in a back and forth with any voter. Star Mississippi 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, assuming good faith, let me explain. Please understand that over the past two weeks, after months of no AfDs, seven religious-based fraternity articles had been PRODed, one of which (an innocuous trade association of the groups) was outright speedy deleted without even the courtesy of an AfD discussion. One might conjecture animus toward these, because of the suddenness and what might appear targeting of these specific groups. Why would someone do this? Perhaps because the several OPs were anti-Christian, anti-religious, or anti-Black. It wasn't MY perception; I had been assuming good faith. I decided not to fight three of the AfDs, because they lacked references, lacked a Baird's notation and even a university portal, and I was unable to confirm further info as their websites were down. One of the AfDs I did fight, and I'm pleased to say was closed as Keep when a number of editors voted in its favor.

Strangely then, two more, similar articles were PRODed today, by you. I am concerned over the sudden focus on these particular groups - are you saying it is coincidental? As you know, it's easy to kill articles, and more difficult to improve them, but that is what experienced Wikipedians are extolled to do. I prefer to improve articles on valid, non-controversial subjects, instead of salting good work with random and harmful AfD PRODs like this. This rush to delete seems arbitrary, without adherence to the consistent, methodical approach used by the active Fraternities and Sororities Project and an example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism". To pick at one or two, and waste time in an AfD debate is, I think, ultimately harmful: Deletionism simply pushes away helpful new editors and opens the door to a broader, more inclusive competitor to Wikipedia. Neither are good outcomes. Finally, I note that the rules regarding Deletion require subject competence, and elaborate on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." (I'm not saying you are too lazy, as a volunteer with such a long track record of helpful work.) Simply that subject matter experts are helpful here. I am an SME in this little corner of the Wikipedia world. Thus, Star, Notability for these two organizations was reached long ago. You explained that notability guidelines have changed; yes, these changes are reflected in how the F&S Project limits the list of groups we support for articles: There have been perhaps 100,000 local chapters, regional, and national groups, but only a fraction of those, maybe 1,500, are notable enough to merit an article. I recognize you are an admin with a long tenure of service. I certainly could switch my vote to simply "Keep". But I hope this explains why I voted Speedy Keep, here. Jax MN (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context and background @Jax MN. Super helpful and I apologize for some slight harshness in my response. I cannot speak to the other seven you mention as I have been on and off line and didn't see those discussions. While I do monitor the AfD logs, this is not an area I frequently edit in. As for how I came to these two? I edited an article about Christian sororities and fraternities after it came to me via SuggestBot and/or one of the backlogs I work through and noticed these when I was cleaning up the table. I definitely think this subset of the fraternity & sorority (F/S for shorthand going forward) world is a notable one as there's a reason Christian, Jewish and African American groups had to establish their own F/S orgs. Unfortunately I think some of these articles were created without regard to what makes them notable, which is why we have the current run of deletion discussions. I have no intention of nominating any of the others in that table as they assert why they're notable. A few need clean up and other editing, but do not merit deletion. In my opinion, these two did not make a case for why they should exist as articles nor did some early AfD discussions on a variety of topics. If you (collective, it's no one's responsibility to do it all) can find sourcing that establishes that, it's wonderful. AfD isn't cleanup, but I think we both have the goal of a better encyclopedia than when we began our days.

You're welcome to leave your speedy keep. I think that's a narrower set, but not going to quibble is at your !vote itself is backed in policy. As an aside, I saw you fixed the table on the other AfD. Mind a look at the one on Christian sorority (fraternities and sororities) if you have a chance? I tried to fix it, but table formatting is not my strength. Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 22:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, thanks again for the engagement, and your review of several subsequent articles I've worked on. I believe my recent updates have answered your concerns with this page, and that of the AfD voter, below. Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, I found one RS mention in a Christianity Today article (paywalled), but there's not enough independent RS non-incidental coverage to show notability. To be honest, even given the small number of chapters, I'm surprised we're not able to surface more student newspaper coverage at least, but even that seems pretty sparse. --Jahaza (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. After the addition of the citation to Torbenson & Park, I'm revising to neutral. The article, however, is way to long and crufted for the amount of verifiable information available.--Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jahaza, thank you for the tip on the Christianity Today article. I cited it, and found numerous other references to add, along with other cleanup just now. Virtually all chapters are linked by their universities as official student organizations, and I have added several of these portals to the page. Our Project group normally does not link these pages directly to chapter-owned websites, as these are not considered RS. University sites undergo far more scrutiny. As to your comment, indeed, fraternities and sororities are typically not mentioned in newspapers very much, unless they are involved in some misbehavior or scandal. For the Project, an organization of 35 years tenure, with 44 chapters easily meets the standard bar of notability used for all such organizations here. Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've revised my vote to simply Keep, striking Speedy for the sake of the discussion. The article has been updated to meet the concerns raised. Jax MN (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Christianity Today article and reliable book sources pass WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on whether current sourcing satisfies notability guidelines would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason why this has been nominated for deletion. It is thorough, lengthy, and on a notable subject: there is a list of chapters of this sorority across the United States. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're questioning my nomination's good faith despite the fact that I did in fact explain why it was nominated, I should point out that there's nothing in your argument that's policy based. Star Mississippi 17:57, 22 April 2022 (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.