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)

Should we now update our scope to include collegiate secret societies, as organizations that operate similarly to GLOs? Rublamb (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it, as there is significant overflow between the two. But I caution that secret societies tend far, far more to being single-chapter groups, and have less defined structures than the fraternity world. I do not know how active their Project is. Jax MN (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP secret society is dead which is why this is even a thought. Because most operate more like a local, we would only be dealing with major or well-known historic groups and the List of article. The overlap with literary fraternities, the earliest true fraternities, Phi Beta Kappa, and secret societies is interesting. Rublamb (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2023 (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. Here's a template reference:
2. The group is listed on a university or college's website, on the institution's 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 - "locals" - pop up all the time, and only a fraction become 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, or be a surviving chapter of a former national or regional organization.

Rather than a standalone article, the names and dates of dormant locals may best be remarked by a footnote against a line of a table noting the particular chapter of a national fraternity into which they merged.

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 1,800 fraternities, sororities or societies are notable today and would merit an article. In contrast, there are perhaps 250,000 local groups, past and present, which are not notable, and do not merit an article. Jax MN (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Quiet performers - When the online Baird's Archive came on the scene after 1991, to continue the Baird's Manual's collection of information about various collegiate GLO societies, it abandoned publication of data on Professional and Honor societies. This was a choice based on limitation of resources. Observers of Greek Letter Organizations note that without mention in Baird's or the vanishing set of annual yearbooks, these organizations lack the high visibility in popular media that delivers notability for other types of organizations. Only a few each year are cited for misbehavior - these indeed do get discussed in the broader media. But these five or ten "bad actors" may be compared to the ongoing existence of hundreds of thousands of chapters of the many national or regional fraternities we track here. Instead, the rest are often quiet performers, serving their communities and schools without fanfare, year after year. Hence, application of this set of notability guidelines, geared for this type of organization, attempts to provide a framework to assess notability for groups that do not live on the front page. Within this Project, we note that we track as notable about 1,800 GLOs, far, far less than the ~250,000 local chapters, past and present, of which we are aware. Jax MN (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2023 (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, Wikilinked 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. Greek letters in names should be capitalized.
• (local - school) = include if applicable, otherwise blank. Syntax: "local", dash and "school name", then insert comma (Note, not all locals are notable. Add the local if they own property, or have 10+ years history, etc.) Notability rules clarified at the link above or below.
• affinity = such as: Christian, originally Jesuit, Masonic, Puerto Rican, LGBT, 2-year college, etc., (one or more, if applicable, otherwise blank), then insert comma. "Affinity" is anything which 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 insert 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, even where the original organization merged into another)
• successor = If the group merged in part or in whole, list these after an arrow: "--> See also [[article name for successor group(s)]]" If multiple successors, list by Greek letter where known, or denote as scattered
• scattered = Used here in place of "See also" when the majority of members of a chapter or national group do not merge into one or more specific societies, and are instead, "generally dispersed"

It may be necessary to add a conference modifier to these listings, too, but I haven't got that far: NIC, NPC, NPHC, MGC, etc. The Infobox template has been adjusted to include a field for this, or for "Independent". Where a groups is a 'local' this is noted in the Scope parameter in the infobox.

• 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 Project's Notability inclusion rules.

WP:DAB pages are included in the main list, as the best place to keep an eye on them. They are noted with DAB, non-bolded.

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)

References

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)

I'd offered the original standard in late 2020, as a fair summary of what our (the Project team's) practice had been, as it aligns with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This, after seeing a chronic campaign of deletion of useful articles for smaller, older fraternal groups. I prefer a consistent, methodical approach like this, rather than a capricious endeavor to delete random pages on a whim.

The deletion of the Kappa Sigma (Philippines) article identified a hole in these Notability rules, where groups outside of the US weren't profiled in Baird's, nor extensively linked by their colleges. In 2018, before I started watching the issue, a flurry of page deletions for Philippine societies occurred on the basis of the catch-all policy WP:GNG. Was that applicable? One outside blog reasonably stated there were some ~300 fraternal groups in the Philippines. I'd seen that some were registered by the Philippine SEC board, and so I suggested SEC registration to identify Philippines notability. If someone has a better idea, I'm supportive. Some of these Philippine societies appear to be weak or dormant locals, and some are non-collegiate.

I favor tracking the non-collegiate GLOs to improve clarity and avoid naming confusion.

On the broader issue of locals, I'd estimated that there were perhaps 6,000 past and present locals that were not notable when I drafted those notability rules. But in reading through the new Baird's Archive Online resource, I see I undershot that estimate dramatically: a majority of chapters (those now part of national IFC, FFC, and NPC groups) created in the 20th Century came from absorption of local groups. The new Baird's Archive lists many of these. The actual number of such absorbed locals may be closer to 50,000. --I don't believe they've been counted. Theoretically, one could make an article about each of them, but I don't claim that these would be notable to our present standard. Instead, the locals that may make the cut are the prominent ones with a lengthy history, or those on campuses that prohibit national Greeks.

To your point about yearbooks. Because they are published works, immediately historical, and at the time of publication subject to peer review and correction in later editions, I favor keeping them as a valid proof of existence. They often trace the path of mergers for resultant chapters. If I was an ancestry researcher, wanting to know if a person was a member, I'd prefer to be able to see this linkage. One example: the actor, Henry Fonda was a Greek at the University of Minnesota. But he was in a local predecessor group to Chi Phi, called Chi Delta Xi, which participated in a merger with Chi Phi a few years after his graduation. No one rejects the fact of his participation, or that the local existed. Here the yearbook simply helps show linkage, and I used that citation on a comprehensive page for all Minnesota's Greek chapters. I'm not pushing to write an article about Chi Delta Xi. Where it comes to using these sources as Notability proof for an article, I think this is reasonable when a local shows up in a succession of yearbooks and shows itself to be more persistent, and not just a step on the way to national affiliation. That's all. Like MIT's Phi Beta Epsilon, arguably the finest local in the country. An article for them would be reasonable, citing over 100 years of inclusion in MIT yearbooks. Reasonably, some locals have pages, like the Rensselaer Society of Engineers, or some of the Dartmouth, or Cornell or Yale locals, or Texnikoi Engineering Honorary at Penn State. Others may be REDIRECTS to a section on a university page, or some other mention. As this Project evolves, and if we ever sort out the Deletionism versus Inclusionism debate, maybe then we can revisit the idea of drafting pages for some of the locals that didn't make the first cut. For now, I simply note prior locals as notes for a chapter, on a fraternity's WP chapter list. Jax MN (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire of the project to find ways to be inclusive, but as someone outside of this project (and outside the Greek world), the "Notability" guidelines listed above seem well out of alignment with notability standards on Wikipedia as a whole. The idea that an organization is notable for having existed for ten years and having a website sets a bar much lower than any other sort of organization gets. Notability means more than mere existence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

These rules follow a 145-year historical precedent first determined by Baird's editors, which has been accepted with near-unanimity for many generations of fraternal volunteers and staff. These are much like an agreed syntax used within many disciplines, where editors with specific knowledge of the category clarify the structures they use in order to both abide by the general notability rules and the needs of that group. I.e., scientists within a discipline should define the specific ways that notability is enforced, as should historians, or sports article editors. At its inception, Wikipedia picked up on these structures, and within projects, these pre-existing systems inform our judgements. Nat, there have easily been 250,000 locals, and this number may be understating the count by 50%. Our rules actually reduce substantially the number of potential articles, and reduce the aggravation that would be caused in arguing whether these should be deleted or not. Our rules, offered in support of general notability requirements, allow us to note the existence of a single local fraternity or a single local chapter, properly cited, without supporting any rush to create separate articles about them. Long ago, Raimond Baird discovered the impossibility of listing, in a book, all Greek letter chapters. Some of these were short-lived, some were extremely successful. He discovered that there was an inflection point where the 'count' of potentially noteworthy organizations became much more manageable once he cut off those groups that had less than three chapters or who hadn't yet existed for five years. (We now require ten years for inclusion.). The longer explanation of Project notability rules is further up, on this page. It's more complicated than just "10 years and a website." Jax MN (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the explanation of the project notability rules higher on the page. That's where I got the example of "10 years and a website", by taking the "Local, independent chapters" criteria which requires 10 years and one of the above numbered items, and that's choosing #6... which is not even the weakest on the list. Wikipedia is not Bairds, and we need no more rely on its standards then we would rely on a Pokemon Guide to show which Pokemon deserve their own page. The presumption that Greek organizations have some inherent import that they needn't show any actual form of notability that we would expect for some other sort of club or business to have a Wikipedia page lacks any foundation that I can see. (You can look to WP:NORG to see what we expect to establish the notability of an organization.) If fraternities need their own, more complete online reference, it need not be Wikipedia. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't interpret the project's notability rules the same way you do. It specifically says "one or more" to determine notablity, and does not say that meeting a single item listed below automatically qualifies a fraternity for incusion in Wikipedia. (Although I would argue that being in Barid's or the more recent oline publication, Almanac of Fraternties and Sororities, would make a group eligble as this is significant coverage). In fact, many of the items listed in the notablity rules specifically note that this item will not meet notability on its own. Some of the specificity that you have noticed is a guideline to help the WP sort through the many, many non-notable groups in an expediant way. To avoid future confusion, I suggest that we split the rules into notability guidelines and a checklist to help determining whether to nominate an article for deletion or to put a citations needed notice on it, as there is an expectation of future coverage. Rublamb (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To my eyes, there are two items on that numbered list which together would achieve what WP:ORGCRIT calls for ("A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."), and that's #1 (Bairds) and #4, profile in a notable source (and I say that presuming the notable source is also reliable). Other than that, the numbered criteria are either not coverage (owning land), not independent (the group's own website; a charity they gave money to), or not significant (listing on the school's website or yearbook -- and that's without raising the question if those sources are truly independent.) I could see these criteria being used to decide how to populate a list article, perhaps, but that's a separate question from WP:N. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with those two for sure. With charities: a listing as a donor is not sig coverage, but a feature aritcle in a charity's newsletter or on its website woud could be signification coverage depdnding on its circulation (it is independent because the GLO is not writing the article and typically has no formal reliationship with the charity). For example, if the American Red Cross covered a GLO in its national magazine, I think that would suffice. Yearbooks alone cannot prove notability but are often a great source for supplemental info and are an allowable reference. Same with college websites. Sometimes a critical mass of reliable sources helps support notability if the primary source if iffy (but that is too nuanced to explain in a list like this). Purhaps, the remining items should be bundled as allowable sources that cannot prove notability? @Jax MN, I totally get the thought process behind this list and how it was meant to be used but am thinking that it makes it look like all things are equal, such as owning real estate has the same credibility as Baird's. I know this was an issues in a prior delete discussions where someone devalued the Almanac because it was in this list. Do you want to discuss on the WP talk page or do you think the two of us can address? Rublamb (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have trouble considering a source "independent" if the reason they are covering an organization is that they donate money to the source. Charities are dependent on their donors. If an outside publication covered the fact that GLO is donating money to the Red Cross, and it's not basically the repeat of a press release, that would be a different matter, of course. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Red-linked GLOs

Question: do redlinked GLOs merit inclusion in the watchlist because they meet notability but still need an article OR simply because they exist? As we work through our current cleanup project and are nominating articles for AfD that have no findable sources, should those groups be removed from the list? What about local GLOs that have redirects to a university's article? In both cases, these GLOs are very unlikely to ever meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. My thought is to remove them from the watchlist, leaving only redlinks that are likely to be created. This would also help prioritize articles for creation. Rublamb (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with removal.Naraht (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hold on. I added many of the missing GLOs to the watchlist in a methodical review of Greek letters. The only reference location which identified more (i.e.: the vast trove of locals) is in the online Baird's archive, which is much more difficult to search. While a prioritization schedule for new articles which meet the necessary bar of notability would be nice, I don't think this is the place for it if in the process we would delete these redlinks. The rationale for listing these here is to be comprehensive, thus including existing articles, likely articles, and in the case of those groups where an article may not be needed, to identify names that are in use so that new start-up GLOs could avoid duplication. I don't think it causes any harm to keep track of these.

To Rublamb's earlier point, regarding redirects to college articles, I'm ambivalent, but don't mind that we keep track of these redirects as long as the college article mentions the society. Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jax MN, I know you put a lot of work into this which is appreciated. However, the Watchlist is an internal WikiProject document used for creating activity notices, not something people would find and use as a reference tool. It is essentially unfindable unless one manages to come to the WP landing page and click a link. We have various GLO list articles that are intended to be comprehensive; we could also create a new list article that includes all known GLOs if you think that the general public needs a master list. But given that the Watchlist's purpose is to generate activity notices, redlinks have little function within the Watchlist unless they are living there briefly until an article can be created (what you call likely articles).

The articles in the current WP AfDs are only on the Watchlist because someone created an article about them, not because these GLOs were found in the usual source materials. These articles are being deleted because, for the most part, these are insignificant local chapters with no proof of notability. However, if these GLOs are important for people to know about, they should be in a list article and/or their university article, rather than the Watchlist. They serve no purpose in the Watchlist as they will not be pulled into a report and not show up in Wikipedia searches and, we already know they are not worthy of a future article. However, the former article will continue to live in the WP deletion report so that future WP members can see this content and the related deletion discussion.

Regarding the redirects: The college articles in question do not/no longer mention these local GLOs, making the redirects unhelpful. Once the redirects are removed, these GLO namees will be redlinks in the Watchlist, falling under whatever is decided in the above discussion. Rublamb (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it. If the function is served by another list, keeping the redlinks that are essentially dormant but for which there has been a page (deleted), or which list a society that exists / had existed and for which notability is not proven, I'd be fine with tightening the Watchlist to only those with activity or pending activity. Jax MN (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If no active members of the WP participated in the AfD discussion or if a member fought the AfD, I did a quick search. If I found evidence that the group was worth a future article, I left them as a redlink in the watchlist. Rublamb (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)