Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Watchlist

Project Scope

This Project is focused on collegiate Greek Letter Organizations (GLOs) and similar organizations that use a chapter structure. The term "fraternity" is used liberally, but where used should be interpreted to include collegiate "sororities", "societies" and similar words. Types of GLOs include professional fraternities, honor societies, service fraternities, multicultural fraternities, and religious fraternities along with the highly visible residential or non-residential undergrad general (academic and social) chapters.

The Project identifies high school and non-collegiate groups (such as military fraternities or LGBT non-collegiate groups) to provide clarity and reduce naming confusion. Jax MN (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Project Notability Rules

Wikipedia has rules about Notability. Within this project, articles about groups must have one or more of the following conditions to support WP's policies of notability:

1. The fraternity has been listed in one or more of the several published editions of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, OR the Online Archive of Baird's Manual that shows social / general fraternities and sororities, at Baird's Archive - Online Almanac. A reference citation must be provided.
2. The group is listed on a university or college's website, on their official list of student organizations. A link must be provided.
3. One or more editions of a university or college yearbook has shown them as a valid organization for one or more years. Link(s) must be provided
4. The group has been profiled (not just with a passing mention) in a standard, itself-notable print publication, or associated website. --Not just a personal blog. A link must be provided.
5. They own or lease real estate property under the fraternity's name, or a name clearly connected with the group, giving them a permanent physical address, with a link clearly showing ownership.
6. The fraternity has a comprehensive website as a homepage, linked as a reference, which a disinterested party would deem complete or useful for the subject. --Not just a Facebook page. A website supports a determination of notability, but is not proof of notability itself.
7. The group is profiled as a significant contributor for regular charitable giving on the website of a notable, nationally recognized charity or institution. Link(s) must be provided. Such a record of charitable giving supports a determination of notability, but is not proof of notability itself.

Additionally, the quantity of chapters is important to Notability:

• Groups with multiple chapters, three or more, otherwise meeting one or more of these conditions, are considered Notable for this project. If a local chapter is the lone survivor of a previous national (or regional) organization of three or more chapters, it should be considered to have met this 'multiple chapters' test.
• Local, independent chapters - Local organizations pop up all the time, and some are not notable. To objectively show notability, a local (standalone) chapter must meet one or more of the foregoing (numbered) conditions, and must show stability and a level of permanence having existed for ten years or more, or have been a precursor, merged into a notable successor organization.

When offering articles, multiple independent reference citations are preferred. Authors should aim for a Baird's listing (if available), AND an official university listing OR a yearbook listing at minimum. A preponderance of other types of citations may be used, but is subjective on the basis of quality and value to the Project. Jax MN (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Rationale: These rules are consistent with a working definition of Notability that Baird's Manual adopted over 140 years ago, and which it followed over 20 editions of that important reference. Baird's limited its definition of 'national' organizations to those which had established at least three chapters, and its early editions only cited local groups when they showed some permanency and had existed beyond ~five years, i.e: after the initial founders had graduated. Our rule is somewhat more stringent, requiring ten years.

Example: Arguably the most successful local fraternity in the US is Phi Beta Epsilon, a 130-year old property-owning local at MIT. This fraternity, according to our rules, merits its own page, and is presently a REDIRECT with Possibilities. Many locals that are listed on Wikipedia are in the form of redirects, except for some very old literary societies with pages and some Ivy League local chapters. Thus there is work to be done, in writing these articles.

Following these rules, perhaps 1,200 fraternity and sorority articles are notable today. In contrast, there are perhaps 6,000 local groups, past and present, which are not notable, and do not deserve an article. Jax MN (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Philippine and PR fraternities

For Philippine, Puerto Rican or other fraternal groups based outside of the US or Canada, notability may be shown by SEC Registration in their home country. Rationale: This appears a fair and accurate way to distinguish those that are the most valid and long-standing. Baird's did not track those outside of the US and Canada, though that source does mention the occasional European chapter. Baird's isn't therefore applicable. Like in the US, some of the Philippine or PR candidate groups are transitory. In January of 2021 a survey of blogs shows there were 295 known Greek Letter organizations in the Philippines alone, including 231 General collegiate or "community" organizations. (This figure does not include Odd Fellows, Jobs Daughters, or Masonic entities). There were an additional 36 Professional Law fraternities, 15 Professional Engineering fraternities, and 13 Professional Medical fraternities (Fraternities here stands for fraternities, sororities, co-ed groups and confraternities). But of these, only 37 have Wikipedia pages. Several years ago there was a major culling of mostly-stub articles about Philippine and Puerto Rican fraternities where Deletionists viewed them as non-notable or ill-sourced. At the time, a Philippine SEC registration seemed to suffice to hold off deletion. That seems a reasonable rule for us to adopt. Jax MN (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Listing syntax

I've worked through the Watchlist, adding about 900 missing groups, reformatting and adjusting for clarity. A few groups are doubtless missing, both multi-chapter and local. Please add them as they crop up.

Syntax example

• Epsilon Eta Phi, women's professional, business administration d. --> See Phi Chi Theta

* [group name, set as [[article]] ] (local - school) if applicable, affinity, gender modifier and/or type, discipline dormant? --> See also [[successor group's article]]

• article = Article name, as Wikilink or Redlink. Pipes OK. These names may have modifiers already; leave these for now. We can adjust for standardization later. No comma
• (local - school) = if applicable, otherwise blank, dash and school name, then comma (Note, not all locals are notable. Perhaps limit to those owning property, or with 20+ years history.)
• affinity = such as: Christian, originally Jesuit, Masonic, Puerto Rican, LGBT (etc., one or more, if applicable, otherwise blank), then comma. "Affinity" is anything that limits its focus or specifies an interest.
• gender modifier = women's, men's, co-ed, or a combination of these separated by a "/", blank OK if co-ed, then NO comma. Assume "co-ed" for active professional or honor groups.
• type = use the word "general" (rather than "social" or "academic"); "professional"; "honor" (can replace 'recognition'); "non-collegiate"; "recognition"; "service"; "religious"; etc., then comma
• discipline = for honor or professional chapters, add limiters like "grad students", if applicable, then the academic program served by the group. Otherwise blank. Then NO comma
• dormant or not? = d. (if applicable)
• successor = If the group merged in part or in whole, list these after an arrow: "--> See also [[article name for successor group]]" If multiple successors, list by Greek letter where known
• scattered = Used here in place of "See also" when the majority of a chapter or national group does not merge into another society, and is instead, "generally dispersed"

It may be necessary to add a conference modifier too, but I haven't got that far: NIC, NPC, NPHC, MGC, etc. The Infobox template ought to be adjusted to include a field for this.

• early names - if a group changed its name, note this with "- early name for xxxxx"

This list includes all groups cited in Baird's Manual (the Online archive, the 20th ed. or earlier), shown with Wikilinks whether an article exists or not. Groups that existed at several older universities, as profiled in yearbooks have been added. The Watchlist has been cross-checked to include groups from the various lists of cultural, and ethnic fraternities. Notable locals, or those with Wikipedia pages already have been added; some have pages, some are redirects or are listed on group (campus) pages. Clearly, many locals (past or present) or those which aren't candidates for DABs, or which are less consequential have been omitted. See the Notability inclusion rules.

Still to do: Divide the Watchlist into sections by organization type, and render this into a sortable table, color-coded for type.
Once THIS is complete, adjust the Project page itself to better call out the existence of this Watchlist, and of the daily change log, and relevant AfD discussions.
Project participants are invited to work on individual redlinked pages, creating either redirects or full articles as best suited, or adding existing Fraternity names I've missed.

Your comments and contributions are welcome. Jax MN (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Standards for WP:N (Notability)

Having reviewed this project's notability (WP:N) rules, I think we should tighten them slightly. My anecdotal observation is that articles on fraternal organizations are often under threat of WP:N deletion. Unifying a set of tight rules will advance the position this Project has to defend its tutelage of articles within its sphere. I suggest we eliminate item (3) [records in collegiate yearbooks] for groups postdating 1879; even if a college noted a fraternity, if Baird's did not, it is a soft hole for attack on our standards. Before 1879, Baird's could not record, for lack of existence, and we can only rely on collegiate sources, and defend them. After 1879, however, I think we should throw our lots in with Baird's as the definitive encyclopedist. That reinforces our approach under (1), which does and I think should elevate Baird as the Britannica of the subject -- if there is an entry there, it is worthy of note, as adjudged by the published authority of the time. We people of the 2020s come far too late to second-guess an authoritative secondary source of the relevant time. It has the added benefit that if for whatever reason Baird did not record it, we should not second-guess the judgemnt of the times. He and his redactors were thorough enough to defer to those judgments. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe in the free flow and promulgation of information, but given differential views, our Project's aims are best served by settling on a firm set of irreproachable standards of notability we can defend and hold against folks less interested in fraternalism that wish to be destructors of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizensunshine (talk • contribs) 06:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In light of the recent and unfortunate deletion of Kappa Sigma Fraternity in the Philippines (as distinct from the US group), I should stress I nonetheless think the above Project rules apt and reasonable for non-North-American fraternities, as Baird did not cover those organizations. Maintaining a consistent set of notability rules within a Project staffed by persons who have particular knowledge on the subject is to the benefit of Wikipedia, as it can help advise those more unfamiliar with the subject as to how notability might be assessed in a particular domain. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)