Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eta Sigma Gamma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 keep. Daniel (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Sigma Gamma

[edit]

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

Eta Sigma Gamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches turned up a dearth of in-depth coverage. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a quality article about a legitimate society with ~85 chapters. It had been languishing in draft space for several months after being started by a new editor. I cleaned it up for posting, with a To Do list showing new editors how to complete the chapter list. Within hours it gets hit with a AfD PROD... WP says to "assume good faith". OK, why else would Onel5969 choose to AfD PROD this article? He/she said they had done a search, which turned up a "dearth" of in-depth coverage. Really? Wow. Dearth means lack. But the strangest thing happened. Again, assuming good faith, I clicked the standard find sources template which Onel5969 helpfully inserted along with the AfD. The very first item, a Google search, turned up links for dozens of official university website pages, each dedicated to their local, active, and thriving chapters of the society on that campus. This was just on the first two pages of my Google search. I haven't gotten to JSTOR or other sources. University websites are independent, and because the topic of each page was that local chapter, the coverage may reasonably be described as "in-depth" versus "cursory." Maybe the nominator's internet connection was down when he/she attempted their own searches. They said they searched. Hmm.
So, using the first ten new links, I added those ten chapters to the growing chapter list for the society's article. I included references, and links for those who wish to check my work.
I looked again, and even in the cursory Google search, another scholarly article popped up, in a Health Sciences journal, which I added to the growing list of references.
I suppose it is possible that each of these universities has posted a fraudulent society chapter, with officers, membership applications and local advisors, but it is unlikely that ALL of them conspired to do so.
Therefore, it is clear, Eta Sigma Gamma is a Notable organization and should be retained on this basis: First, it certainly meets the standard used by the Fraternities and Sororities Project that requires at least three chapters to claim national status. (It has 85 chapters). It has existed for 53 years, showing permanence. Even if it was a local, single-chapter fraternity it would be required to have existed ten years for notability among other requirements; again, this organization is over 53 years old. Eta Sigma Gamma (and its local Ball State chapter) are registered corporations in Indiana, as cited among the references. It has a physical address and comprehensive website. It is noted in a scholarly journal, as cited in the references. Finally, Eta Sigma Gamma's Talk page "to do" list asks for additional citations and other cleanup, reasonably so, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. 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 is arbitrary, without adherence to the consistent, methodical approach used by the active Fraternities and Sororities Project and an unnecessary example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism". There are some 1,200 national and local groups we track that are Notable, while we ourselves deem some 6,000 (maybe as many as 50,000) past or present fraternal organizations as Non-Notable. To pick at one, and waste time in a capricious AfD debate is pointless and harmful. Deletionism simply pushes away helpful new editors and opens the door to a broader, more inclusive competitor to Wikipedia. Neither are good outcomes.
The rules regarding Deletion require 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." --Thus I hope that the nominator isn't simply picking on fraternity articles to take cheap shots. Probably not. Jax MN (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are AFDSOCKS allowed to vote? Your IP address shows a history of three deletion discussions and no further contributions. Contrary to your point, each and every one of the university references is independent, and reliable. Further, there are now two scholarly journals cited. No; WikiProjects do not own the articles they watch. But they provide tremendous consistency in making sense of the categories they support. I call shenanigans on this vote. Jax MN (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Covered in publications related to its field. Complete chapter list is available, but I'm going to hold off making the complete list until this AFD is complete.Naraht (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The organization in question maintains an active website (https://etasigmagamma.org/). It is not a social college fraternity dating to another century, but a modern professional society for physicians. It seems absurd to propose for deletion a society active at this very moment in recognizing medical professionals of merit by its terms, whose inductees clearly feel, and one may suppose, that its current and alumni members are part of a larger whole, or else it would not exist. Notability relies on the fact that some reliable sources (not instantiated by the subject itself) might be expected to have documentation and proof of the subject, and here it is undeniable that neutral sources via Google or Bing can show us the existence of ΗΣΓ (Eta Sigma Gamma). A brief review of the websites of the institutions which are purported to have such chapters reveals there are ample secondary and respectable sources (if we may assume universities to be so) for the society's existence and thus notability to those associated. For the record, I have no association, communications with, or contact with this group. This is only my own considered opinion. If any feel this article lacks basis, let us improve it rather than destroy it. I'll be the first one with a shovel in the ground. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 10:18, 13 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eta_Sigma_Gamma&oldid=1007066605"