Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa Sigma (Philippines)

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 delete. Jax MN, if you want to work on the article in your userspace, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll undelete it and move it there. (You should, however, obtain a consensus for re-creation at WP:DRV before moving it back to mainspace.) . Deor (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma (Philippines)[edit]

[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)

This thoroughly fails WP:GNG or WP:ORG. WP:BEFORE, and on a Google News search, even with the search string "Philippines" spit out the United States fraternity, and not the Philippines-based one. I do see a handful of references relating to Filipinos, but not to the Philippines-based fraternity, but to the United States one. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sliekid (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the fraternity. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not surprised that English language searches do not find much about this organization. The article describes 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 21 chapters). Even if it was a local, single-chapter fraternity it would be required to have existed ten years for notability; this organization is over 35 years old. Kappa Sigma (Philippines) has a stable, professional website. Finally, it is a registered corporation, listed by the Philippine SEC. Because the category's standard reference, Baird's Manual, has not listed any Philippine fraternities (or those headquartered outside of the US and Canada), Kappa Sigma (Philippines) is unable to cite that book. In lieu of this, and because some 37 fraternities and sororities out of a pool of almost 300 in the Philippines are/were stable enough to become registered corporations, the F&S Project allows Philippine SEC registration as an indicator of validity and notability. Finally, Kappa Sigma (Philippines)'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 random AfD PRODs.

One further benefit of this article is that it helps reduce natural confusion between the Philippine group and the larger Kappa Sigma fraternity, based in the US.

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". When a random AfD PROD appeared on the article, I wrote a more lengthy defense on the Talk page. It should have settled the matter there. There are some 1,200 national and local groups we track that are Notable, while we ourselves deem some 6,000 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. Jax MN (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused, why do you say "the standard used by the Fraternities and Sororities Project" and then point to a page solely edited by yourself? If you are going to argue based on some perceived consensus, at least point to a page where a consensus can be seen. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hello Duke. Project participants include those listed on our project page and many others who routinely monitor Greek pages. My efforts to update individual Talk pages and the Project Watchlist aim to help publicize pages to those who care about these articles, as an entry point, or re-engagement point. When new or experienced editors review the Project, they are now met with a list of general To Do items (there is much work to be done for the category), just as individual Greek articles are being given their own To Do suggestion lists. Various links bring them to the items I'd posted on Notability and on Syntax. Sure, I wrote the Notability section. --Fully in keeping with Wikipedia's broader policy, and written to more clearly state our specific issues. It collates what had previously been implied rules, and allows a backstop for consistency. While writing, I also was mindful of the standards used by Baird's Manual for inclusion. (Many, many thousands of collegiate societies do NOT meet those requirements.) As the premier reference work for the category, I appreciate that Baird's offers clarity on what groups were/are notable, and which aren't, in general alignment with Wikipedia. Thus, the section you mention offers consistency and clarity, and is fully open for revision or collaboration. Consensus-forming can take months. I certainly welcome that discussion. BOLD, n'est ce pas? Do you suggest another place where I ought to port this discussion for consensus? I thank you for your respectful inquiry on this, and for not rushing to delete, "per nom".

BTW, my secondary purpose is to welcome and mentor new users. This benefits Wikipedia, where too often new users get burned off because of aggressive demands for bloated citation, aggressive AfD PRODs, unfriendly jargon in edits and reverts, and other Deletionist tactics. These are bullying efforts, and harmful to our goal of making Wikipedia the most useful resource of its kind. Jax MN (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find sources to satisfy WP:ORG. I am sympathetic to the argument that it's difficult to find sources for this in English (and I also searched in Spanish), but fact is, the article has zero instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Ref 1 is their website, ref 2 is a mention of registration, ref 3 is not reliable - the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online, and ref 4 is not independent. There's nothing to work with. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If Philippine fraternities are notable, you can easily find them with a Google search in English. One such example is the Sigma Rho Fraternity, where the 1st 17(!) references are about the fraternity itself, while references 18-41 are passing mentions of the fraternity on references about its members. It's not that hard to find, if notable. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Kappa Sigma (Philippines) is a valid group, and it exists. I fully agree with you Howard that citations are limited. Just yesterday I wrote to the group, seeking outside citations or university mention. In my experience, most of the 300 Philippine GLOs (Greek Letter Organizations) have poor external references available, far less than the typical US GLO, so I'd offered the rationale that a Philippine SEC registration (37 of them) would be a minimum requirement for inclusion on WP. Of course, we can apply a more stringent standard, leaving only a couple of groups with articles. (And open the door for a more comprehensive alternative to Wikipedia.) I would prefer that we leave this as a STUB or START page, inviting further citations. Jax MN (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every organization that has existed will get a Wikipedia article. Please be versed with WP:ORG and ultimately WP:GNG. Existence does not mean notability. If WP:RS of a fraternity exists, you can easily find them. If there are only a handful of fraternities that fulfill this requirement, that's not our problem. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing about this organization passes WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage by reliable independent sources per WP:GNG – Epinoia (talk) 21:22, 31 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.