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. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not merely the sourcing currently in the article; similarly, notability is enduring and the age or longevity of a topic does not factor in to notability judgments.

Editors advocating deletion largely did not engage with these points (which the "keep" editors brought up, even if they didn't include ALLCAPS links with them) or outright contradicted them. While those advocating deletion rightly point out that a single source is not sufficient to satisfy the WP:GNG, none appear to have looked beyond WP:GHITS or the current sourcing. The most charitable reading of the delete argument is that the short-lived nature of the organization suggests that adequate sourcing never existed and cannot be found.

Those advocating we keep the article produced an additional (minor) source and argued that the organization's inclusion in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities strongly suggests additional sources exist offline. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but it rebuts the idea that adequate sourcing never existed or cannot be found.

Discussion was limited and this issue was not resolved. Since participants could not come to a conclusion on the availability of sources, there is no consensus to delete. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delta Beta Phi

Delta Beta Phi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORGDEPTH. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass either of those threshholds. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete a very short lived fraternity that maxed out at 6 chapters, existed for 4 years, and is basically covered in one book that seeks to be the total directory of all fraternities in the US. We need more sourcing than this to justify having an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Johnpacklambert the "one book" ( Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities) in question had various editions published over a 140 year period and *is* viewed as the reference book in the field. I'd like to confirm the longer chapter list, I'd hope Jax MN could include which editions the longer chapter lists occur in (or the specific yearboooks) . If the group did last until the 1920s with that chapter list, it make the threshold. Naraht ( talk) 17:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - what "threshhold"? Definitely not WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• The original comment only mentions the 6 chapters, not the about two dozen that sprung up afterwards over a longer time period. Naraht ( talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - and that changes how it meets WP:GNG how exactly? There is no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I have added a reference link within the article to the Baird's Manual Archive, a curated online resource which I'd only recently discovered. It's a massive continuation of archival study of these collegiate societies, based on the work of William Raimond Baird. It remains the seminal reference for the field. Jax MN ( talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep this article. The group existed, and has enough available history from respected sources to flesh out a useful start page. It was NOTABLE while active, and notability doesn't change over time. Since the article was written, additional reference sources and reports of multiple additional chapters have been found. The larger question remains, with an active group of Wikipedians working on Fraternity and Sorority (F&S Project) articles, and self-policing with consistent rules for notability, why insert random and arbitrary AfD PRODs that cause a large amount of wasted effort in the debate process? See Jason Scott Sadofsky's Notacon presentation on the "wasted effort" subject. ^[1] I support Inclusionism, over Deletionism, which is a much broader debate. I agree that Deletionism is a hold-over philosophy, constrained by print-era thinking. "Deletionism" harms Wikipedia, by contributing to WP community disintegration, and decreasing the motivation of new authors and editors. Further, I don't see the point of aggressive deletion here, when, a) the society exists, b) it has good references, c) the article is readable and well-formed, d) a motivated group of editors is actively involved in improving stubs like this, and e) it is uncontroversial (compared to the flurry of self-promotional or silly articles created each day. See Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable.

I'm going long on this response, in support of WP and our Project. Onel5969, you appear to be a pro editor, with a lengthy resume. --A film expert, among other things. I'd never presume to step into that space, and salt film and actor articles with random AfD PRODs just because I think an actor was "too minor" to earn a page. I leave those decisions in your capable hands. In the same way, I have a long history in researching these collegiate groups, as do other passionate supporters of the F&S Project. Let us self-police these for notability, eh? Our own approach would deny pages to some 6,000 transitory local groups which I propose are "not yet notable." I hope you see the logic in this, and I am not arguing bad faith on your part. A novelist, Nicholson Baker wrote the most trenchant remark, saying,

Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an on-line encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come. [...] It's harder to improve something that's already written, or to write something altogether new, especially now that so many of the World Book–sanctioned encyclopedic fruits are long plucked. There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work—even to the point of laughing at nonstandard "Engrish." They poke articles full of warnings and citation-needed notes and deletion prods till the topics go away. ^[2]

I don't think you are mocking. Just over-zealous in deleting this page, and one or two others where we have crossed paths. I urge you, and other good-faith editors or admins to reconsider the aggressiveness of some of the deletion efforts impacting articles like this. Jax MN ( talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Has one source it gathers its information from and a search doesn't reveal anything to further add. In regards to aggressive deletions, I have never brought an article up for deletion and I wouldn't. I will, however, base my !vote upon the criteria by which Wikipedia has given us to judge notability. The subject does not pass the criteria found in WP:N and therefore should not be included. -- ARose Wolf 18:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - This debate, " Deletionism versus Inclusionism is much bigger than this singular AfD. One of the references I posted predicted that if WP maintains the higher bar of inclusion, to only allow articles which meet our present sensibilities of what is "notable", as inspired by paper-based experience, we run the risk that another bigger, broader resource will "top" us, and become a more important research tool. It may seem a distant threat now, but Artificial Intelligence is improving on a logarithmic scale, and soon, fully-automated research may render Wikipedia a quaint, limited resource that is absorbed, then ignored. The organization's title is un-ambiguous. Hence, I prefer to let people decide to read it, curating for themselves, and not taking that choice from them. And as other authors have noted, WP's notability rules are unsettled, and arbitrary. All of which is why I wish to keep the article. Without it, a Civil War, or collegiate researcher or a genealogist faces a dead end. Keeping it causes no harm. Jax MN ( talk) 19:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• I would argue that keeping it does cause harm. How do we know where to improve upon the criteria if the criteria is constantly circumvented? How do we know where to improve if we shrug our shoulders at policy and go around it almost at will? I would argue that every article that does not unequivocally prove notability, not based on personal criteria or feelings but the strict criteria within this organization causes irrevocable damage to our ability for continuous improvement. These instances of simply ignoring the criteria will cause more harm in the future and only slow the inevitable demise unless quick intervention is administered by way of process. Proverb: You cant see the forest is on fire because you are hiding in a tree. -- ARose Wolf 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It seems self-evident to me that the existence and operation of a society that was no doubt a major influence in the lives of the students who joined it is notable in some Platonic sense. That the society failed to persist doesn't change the importance of its brief existence. Nor does heavy reliance on Baird's indisputably authoritative work in the field suggest any less notability: indeed, its inclusion in Baird seems to me to support its notability as a sort of endorsement by the premier authority of fraternalism and its history. It is difficult to see why the innumerable "atlas" articles mechanically reporting on tiny rivers or other geographical features could be considered more notable. The important thing here is that the article is properly sourced, factually reportable on an objective basis, and non-trivial. The presence of articles on esoteric or obscure subjects is one of the strengths of Wikipedia, and the article's presence does not harm or make less prominent any other work. To erase true facts on a WP:N basis should accordingly face a high burden, which this article does not come close to meeting imho. Leave the poor article alone; it isn't hurting anyone, and perhaps might answer someone's question one day. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 01:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Citizensunshine, and your policy based argument for this is... ? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Goodness, what a rapid response! At base, it's an issue of the "burden of proof" to show that the article fails the WP:N criteria -- which I view as high. Under WP:N, it seems the only real objection could be that there are an insufficient multiplicity of reliable, independent sources. (The age of the fraternity seems clearly addressed by the precept of "Notability is not temporary.") As for GNG, since it's clearly based on substantive coverage (rather than a mere mention or "trivial" or "incidental" coverage, to use WP:N's verbiage) in one such source already in Baird's, the WP:N argument would seem to boil down to it needing more. But WP:N is clear that only generally is more than one source needed, and stresses there isn't some kind of magic number that transmutes an article into notability. In the case of a short-lived fraternity of the nineteenth century, when there were decidedly fewer sources being penned in the first place, it seems reasonable that it's sourced solely from the "bible of fraternities," or at least the question is arguable. That ambivalent status does not begin to reach what I'd view as the standard of proof for deleting the article under WP:N. Moreover, it's eminently fixable: a quick Google search revealed that UPenn's archives have an entry for the fraternity as well: https://archives.upenn.edu/exhibits/penn-history/fraternities/listing/delta-beta-phi. More sources could no doubt be corralled with a bit more legwork. Why are we in such a rush to wholesale delete this authorship? If there is an argument that it needs further sources to thoroughly confirm its notability beyond cavil, shouldn't the more productive answer be to improve the article to include such sources rather than eradicate it? An overly legalistic approach to parsing Wikipedia's policies can only lead to negative results, when the overarching aim of the project is the collation and dissemination of information. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 02:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Just to put my proverbial money where my mouth is, I've done the beginning of said legwork and added some additional secondary sources from external authors (other fraternal writers and a history) to begin helping to flesh out the article. Hopefully it reflects a sign that we can make this better rather than end the effort. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Forgive me but everything written here almost sounds like, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I deal with facts. Black and white facts. I have tried the gray area and that can be manipulated to pretty much mean whatever you want once you start giving in. The criteria literally says significant coverage in multiple (not numerical but intellectual) reliable and independent secondary sources. A thousand mentions do not make a subject notable according to the criteria. Twenty articles all saying the same thing and offering nothing intellectually different from the other is only one source according to Wikipedia. Would this discriminate against a lot of topics? Yes. Is that the intention? Maybe. But regardless of whether it is the intention or not, that is the results and until the criteria is changed Wikipedia should be responsible for what it decides to make its policies and editors should be responsible to follow the criteria as it is laid out, otherwise it damages the encyclopedia further because notability becomes a moving target. -- ARose Wolf 20:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• ARose Wolf, I hear your reasons for a binary adherence to a principle, and I agree that the reason we have WP:s is to give us the skeleton of how we ought to decide. But WP: does not provide us with a full-fledged legalist common law and precedent with which to apply adjudication, which is why I tend away from a legalistic view of WP: principles. I attempted (and perhaps failed, based on your remarks) to explain in response to the query of Onel5969 how my earlier response was grounded in WP:N principles. I hope I have communicated adequately that I hold deletion based on non-adherence from WP:N or other such principles to a high standard of proof. I respect if you think the evidence meets your own sense of the standard of proof. I would ask if my additions of further sources, detail, and connections to the subject of the article has changed your view, and, if not, what additions of detail and sources that I might research and make that would satisfy your standards -- indeed, an elucidation of your standards for a WP:N compliance article would be most appreciated so I could address, if possible, each. But I do fundamentally disagree with the notion that, simply by virtue of the concept of the subject of an article, it is impossible it might meet WP:N by means of scholarly revision, unless the subject is non-factual or trivial in the first place. As stated in my first post, I see no reason to believe the subject of this article to be either non-factual, nor trivial in the time period in which it was relevant. That its non-triviality or relevancy to many people has declined over time does not seem to be an issue under WP:N principles, as quoted above. At base, I would prefer to improve this article personally than see it deleted, if I can help meet your standards somehow. It seems like improvement should always be the preferred route to deletion, if possible. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 05:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Citizensunshine I do my own extensive research into subjects brought up for AfD or I won't comment on them. I am not saying anything in the article is not factual. I am saying that there simply isn't enough information to tell me that anyone outside of the scope of this organization thinks of it as significant. That in and of itself is not an indicator of notability nor does it preclude it from deserving an article. What does is the only criteria by which every article should be judged for inclusion. That criteria is very discriminatory but is also indifferent to the common bias we as humans tend to base our opinions upon. Out of respect for you I have looked over the sources you have added but I find none of them to be inherently reliable based on Wikipedia's definition nor do I find them to be independent, secondary or intellectually different in all cases. Nothing sourced or unsourced that I have seen causes me to believe this organization is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of it found in WP:N. -- ARose Wolf 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - People within the scope of this organization are dead. 150-year old organizations are not common topics in modern, published sources, those that are easily researched. But present sources are not the basis of this article. Writers used century-old citations in yearbooks (reliable, published annually showing a pattern, and publicly available). The Baird's listing didn't just appear in the recent archive, but is a combination of a 109-year old citation when first mentioned, along with analysis of then-contemporaneous yearbooks from multiple schools, each of which is consistent with the other. Tsistunagiska, this is not a vanity listing of a transient, recent topic, which perhaps requires such stringent protection of 300 kilobytes of our precious server space. You have applied a modernistic approach that is unwarranted. The group was notable in the past, and notability doesn't change over time. IF yearbooks, century old magazines, or the many editions of Baird's Manual aren't reliable sources, then you'd toss out all mention of fraternities except those few which are profiled for recent hazing on NPR. Jax MN ( talk) 18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• I didn't create Wikipedia's guideline for notability. If the guideline leads us to that point then yes, it doesn't belong here under the current criteria. We obviously have a conflict of interests here. I follow Wikipedia's definition of notability, not the definition used 150 years ago. If we continue to circumnavigate bad policy just because we think we should know better then we never know what is wrong with the policies we pass. It's like fixing financial issues to make everything look right and balanced. It's going to come back on us down the line. The only way to do it is adhere to the policy as it is literally stated and then make policy changes that will remove what is bad and replace with some improved language. This subject does not pass the guideline as it is literally stated. -- ARose Wolf 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• ARose Wolf, (I hope I have gotten it right with all the formatting): Perhaps I am too much a neophyte in Wikipedia arbitrations and arguments, but I do not understand how a reference to a "definition used 150 years ago" could adhere to an online encyclopedia begun only twenty years ago that properly respects that many entities or concepts preceding the advent or Wikipedia (or even 150 years ago) might be notable by the standards of their times. Is the Epic of Gilgamesh non-notable because it lacked contemporaraneous secondary citations that survive to this day? If we found some such secondary clay articles, would it make it more or less notable? And given the cited modern commentary cited in the Wiki article on said Epic is largely tertiary source in nature, should we start a campaign to eradicate that article? I think not, with all humility. WP: policies cannot override the I think the proper cite here is to just write a user reference, i.e. Wolf, to alert the party responded to as response.) Our duty is not to follow ambiguously and ambivalently applicable policies written in words on WP: articles; our duty is to encyclopedically preserve all non-trivial demonstrable information that we -- humanity, really -- can collate intelligibly in this wiki format and context. The debate thus far is as to what encyclopedically means with reference to WP:N and (I hope) our general beliefs of what Wikipedia is meant to do. I shan't argue any more on the legalistic or "policy" points as I was asked to at one point, as I respectfully disagree with you there as to whether the factual bases of the article under contention now meet WP:N. But in the end, I would refer back to an axiom (not a policy, law, or any other source of legalistic application) that if we as a community on Wikipedia lack consensus, ought we not preserve knowledge and the resulting prose rather than delete it? Without that premise, why would any try to create an encyclopedic volume of knowledge at all? Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 11:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete This organization is not even a side-note in history, and soley un- NOTABLE. Give it the burial it deserves. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of, what is at best, TRIVIA and TRIVIAL MENTIONS. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - That's an arbitrary judgment; it was once notable, enough for listing it in several collegiate yearbook and in the foundational reference book of the category. Notability does not diminish over time. It meets the requirements of that same reference book (Baird's required at least three chapters, or some longevity in the case of a "local"), and meets the bar of the Fraternity and Sorority Project editors. Jax MN ( talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (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.