Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Alpha Mu

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. Sandstein 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Alpha Mu

Sigma Alpha Mu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Strong DeleteI came to this page to see if it had sources as the article I found the link in, did not. I propose:

1. This article does not have Verifiable Content
2. Is written by members themselves, see the Talk:Sigma_Alpha_Mu and their internal discussion of club literature, therefore it is not a wp:npov and is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
3. Constitutes Original Research, just read it.
4. Contains no value to wikipedia, in fact may serve to associate subjects of in vivo biographies in a way that may be incorrect. Alan.ca 09:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep -- Website is located here: http://www.sam.org/. Bearly541 09:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you vote keep, the inclusion of their web site in no way disputes my reasons for nomination? Alan.ca 10:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, and Ccson's fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha are edited by members who belong to the fraternity. Also, we site the official website and (in the case of APhiA) history books. Bearly541 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you answered the question. Akihabara 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but might need some cleanup Skrewler 10:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on my nomination criteria, this is not a vote, but a debate.Alan.ca 10:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your criteria, but if you're going to AfD this one, you should AfD all the other Frats/Sororities that are on Wikipedia. If not, then this one just needs to be cleaned up (a lot). Skrewler 10:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, let's work together to flag all Frat pages that meet the same criteria for nomination here. When would you like to start?Alan.ca 10:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, changing to Delete Please see User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs We already have a sort of cult following, perhaps we can expand the project to include frats. Skrewler 10:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I take back what I said about expanding the project, but I thought I'd show you what we've been doing Skrewler 10:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Articles been cleaned up (kind of), and sourced. Meets wiki guidelines for notability and verifiability Skrewler 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of similar is simply not a criterion for keeping an article. Ever. I for one would welcome a systematic AfD for all nn frats. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right about everything except NN. A whole lot of major universities have this fraternity. I'm no notability scholar, but it seems to me that alone would satisfy the criteria. Many, many, google hits.--Tractorkingsfan 10:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be the start of a New Frat Patrol Alan.ca 10:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Complete OR. Linkspam, listspam, sounds like a copyvio or copied from somewhere else. If not, this is obvious vanispamcruftisement. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is unsourced, autobiographical, original research. On a wiki, however, this reality should only serve as an invitation to improve the article. The article is of little value to Wikipedia as is, but considering that the subject appears to be indeed notable, a better article could be. --Tractorkingsfan 10:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is not a forum to debate deletion policy. It serves as a forum to debate if this article meets the deletion criteria as nominated. Do you have any information that challenges my assertions in the nom? Alan.ca 11:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As should be clear from my previous two comments, I feel as though the fact that the subject is notable trumps your concerns. I agree with you, but what I'm saying is that all of those things are fixable, where as not being notable is not. If the information is available from a variety of websites, and anyone has access both to this information and to the tools required to add it to this encyclopedia, then why do we need to delete it? I don't know how to say it any better than that. Sure, you listed it for deletion and put forth some criteria. Does that mean that all of us are required to address our comments only to you now, or that those are the only criteria that exist? Trying to control the discussion is not going to help get your point across any more clearly. You made your point, and I thought it was a good one. But you are not addressing what I'm saying, either. --Tractorkingsfan 11:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot comment on what contributions may be made to the article. This AfD will be up for 5 days, if you think the article can be salvaged I suggest you make those changes and then anyone reviewing this AfD will have those contributions to take into consideration.Alan.ca 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, suggest away. The fact is that it's presumptuous to assume consensus at this point, when what you're essentially saying is that any article for which sources have not yet been cited or that someone suspects may represent a conflict of interest should be deleted. To address your concerns: Unverifed does not mean unverifiable. "Just read it" is not exactly hard evidence. I've already disputed "no value to wikipedia." And I don't know what "associates subjects of in vivo biographies in a way that may be incorrect" means. I'm done. --Tractorkingsfan 12:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That was a little out of line, I'm sorry. It is probably autobiography, as I said myself. But it can be sourced and much of it can be verified, and there's nothing slanderous and anything incorrect can be removed. I'll try to work on it myself tomorrow. --Tractorkingsfan 12:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notability has been established. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A hundred-year old fraternity with 69 chapters in major colleges with a fairly long list of notable alumni is notable. Lots of articles need editing, but that doesn't mean they should be summarily deleted.--Prosfilaes 14:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stating that other deletable articles exists is not a counter point to my assertion that this article does not meet wikipedia guidelines. We have no way of confirming the notability assertion, as there are no cited independent sources. Alan.ca 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Organization meets WP:ORG. The omission of sources is easily correctable. I'm not willing to say this nomination was bad faith, but there are certainly articles whose references are in worse shape but are allowed to stand. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the article cannot meet any guideline if the statements used to meet that guideline are unsourced. The assertions in the article relate to many biographies of living people and therefore must be verified by independent sources.Alan.ca 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a national organization, it meets WP:ORG. Sourcing, COI, and phrasing issues can be handled outside of AfD-- danntm ^T _C 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• These issues have not been met outside of AfD and that's why I have nominted the article. Alan.ca 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please note, in WP:ORG, it is clearly stated the following cannot be used to establish notability:

1. Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article.

• Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself.

2. Student-run newspapers.

• Comment Okay, how about this website, which not only confirms some information in the article, but also lists a number of notable members of the fraternity and does not appear to be in any way affiliated with the organization? --Tractorkingsfan 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• That web site states, This is a beta version of NNDB, I would not consider it to be a reliable source. Alan.ca 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further Comment As an initial step, I just axed the entire "fraternity history" paragraph, which was pure advertising/autobiography/unverifiable from start to finish, in my opinion. Now we have more objective material remaining on the page. Much of it is still unsourced. Someone let me know what they think of the website I link to above. If that is usable to establish notability, we can use some of the "internal documents" as sources without a problem. Also tell me if there are any disagreements regarding my removal of that paragraph. Trying to start getting this thing in working order. --Tractorkingsfan 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)--

• How about taking the article to a sand box or someone's talk page until it is ready? In the mean time, we can delete this edition.Alan.ca 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• In response to many other comments here, I have decided to include an excerpt from the admin guide to deletion to clarify my perspective on this nomination.Alan.ca 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus

• To respond to both of your last two comments, I don't know, maybe it could be moved for a while until it's ready; that's not a suggestion I would immediately reject. However, I still lean toward keep, only because I just don't think this article fits even that paragraph you just cited. The article, to a certain extent, violates some of these policies. However, it is certainly not impossible that an article on this topic can exist without breaching these three policies. Ergo, these policies need not be respected above other opinions. The article currently, in certain places (namely the paragraph I attempted to delete), does violate policy, but an article on this topic need not necessarily do so, as notability is established, the internal documents can be used as sources, and non-neutral tone is fairly easy to fix. Thus, according to the logic of the very paragraph you cited, the article does not demand deletion. A better option is repair. --Tractorkingsfan 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability cannot be established because there are no acceptable sources cited. This is such a key element that many discussions relating to notability point out that some sources that are acceptable otherwise cannot be used to establish notability. Speedy delete makes an exception for asserted notability, but AfD actually requires it to be proven as per the excerpt I included above. I have discussed this with more than one arbcomm member. If the article is notable, find the verifiable sources that are accepted.Alan.ca 09:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Except their notability can be established based on information on their website. Is their date of founding and number of chapters so contentious as to warrant it not counting as a source? That's the primary factor that would disqualify it; otherwise, WP:V says it should be allowed as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot use self-cited sources for establishing notability. Think about it, I'm notable because I wrote an article about myself stating as such? Alan.ca 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting WP:V: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious...." If you write about yourself saying that you're notable, that's contentious. If Sammy's HQ writes that they have chapters at 50+ colleges across the US and Canada, and if you can find them directory-listed at all 50 colleges, do we need to reference all 50 schools' directories, or can the self-published source stand? Note also that I have added a scholarly reference—a doctoral dissertation, which means heavy research and review—supporting the age and religious affiliation of SAM, which is half of its claim of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That statement is addressing the fact that you may use the source in the article, it does not say it can be used as a source to establish notability. As I stated previously, if we permit self-cited sources to establish notability, anyone can make statements about themself that would make them notable. That would be flawed logic.Alan.ca 02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. Organization meets WP:ORG. No one is debating the credibility of General Electric just because much of the information on the Wikipedia article comes from their own website. Sammy is a nationally known frat that’s quite a bit larger than many other ones which were proposed for deletion and allowed to stand. The article is in poor shape but for no reason should it be deleted. Sammy is an easily verifiable organization and I’m sure some editors are working on adding some other sources already. If you’re worried about some things being notable why don’t you go and AfD some articles on the random flash toons episodes and no name porn stars we have on Wikipedia. Trey 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Extremely bad faith nomination and/or unfamiliar nomination from a new editor. According to the nominator's logic, all fraternities, sororities and student organizations are inherently non-notable. A 100+ year old fraternity that is national in scope, part of the National Interfraternity Conference etc., has prominent alumni is notable. I've watched over all the fraternity articles and many of them have bias but to delete for that? You don't delete. You fix it up. The fact that the nominator states" Please comment on my nomination criteria, this is not a vote, but a debate" shows that the the editor is not familiar with AfD processes or Wiki policy because Afd's ARE votes. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Though Alan.ca and I have had a hefty back and forth over this article, I see no reason to label his actions as bad faith. In addition, an Afd, like most other things here, is not a vote but a search for consensus. The strongest argument wins (for example, a complete copyvio pretty much trumps everything). The problem Alan has is that while most of us would use common sense to conclude that the frat is obviously notable, most of us have not proffered a verifiable, third-party source to definitively prove any assertions of notability. Cfred's arguments go a ways towards alleviating that concern, but I understand Alan's argument. --Tractorkingsfan 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I still believe this is a nomination on poor grounds. I too understand where Alan is coming from but if you've edited Wikipedia long enough, you'll see how much of the articles on here fall for AfD within his scope of reasoning. I've often participated in AfD for nearly two years and the reason why I stated this as bad faith is because of his arguments above and his wanting to start a "New Frat Patrol". Alan may not be one of them, but I've seen many notable student organizations get nominated for AfD by prejudice of an editor instead of a solid argument. AfD is usually reserved for controversial articles. This "debate" should have been on the talk page. At best a cleanup tag or disputed tag should have been placed. You can call it votes, consensus etc, but in the end, when the admin closes the nomination, votes for keep and not to keep are the primary considerations, not "comments" which this nomination is riddled with (myself guilty of this). --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a vote. The point of an AfD is to have a debate on the issues. Many people don't actually know that an AfD is not a vote, but in fact, if you read Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette it clearly states as much in the policy. Alan.ca 08:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Needs a little work, but should be improved. Articles of various level exist for all of the members of the North American Interfraternity Council and would be recreated immediately. There are editions of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities which are in the public domain, but the only on Wikisource is from 1879 which is too early. 1920 edition would be ideal (Since SAM was founded in 1909). However using whether they would founded before the last public domain Bairds as a qualification strikes me as really goofy. Naraht 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep for Now - This is clearly a notable fraternity. I say give the writers until February to cite the appropriate sources, and then AfD again if they haven't. -- THL 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and clean. If this article isn't yet meeting criteria to keep, the subject is certainly worthy of an article: note articles on every other fraternity. Scoutersig 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - How can you even propose this for deletion, it is a waste of time for AfD participants. TH 18:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please, if you're going to participate in this debate, make a point vs. suggesting it's a waste of time, which has no meaningful value. Further, stating that other articles exist that meet AfD criteria doesn't address the value of this article either. Alan.ca 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• My point is that it is highly obvious that the article should not be deleted and therefore the AfD nomination is a waste of time. Clearly the organization is notable, if the article isn't quite up to the required standards then it can become so over time. The only good thing an AfD possibly accomplishes in this case, is to bring attention to the community that the article may be in need of improvement, but really there must be a better and less provoking way of attaining that (such as Template:Improve) rather than AfD. TH 09:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's notable, there should be atleast one article, somewhere, in a local published newspaper that is dedicated to talking about this group. Something better than a student paper should easily be available if this is a topic of great interest. Alan.ca 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I have to agree with the above - the fraternity has been around long enough, and one of a handfull of Jewish organizations in what has been historically dominated by predominalty white/Christian groups. As much as some people don't like them, fraternities and sororities are an important part of American college life. Granted, the article needs to be cleaned, but I believe deletion is uncalled for. User:hps05 21:04, 14 December, 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the commenters above, this meets WP:ORG guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, WP:ORG is a proposed guideline. Therefore, meeting it, does not mean anything. Alan.ca 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, I am aware, but surely you can agree that this subject does meet our increasingly strict standards for verifiability, and that WP:ORG in its proposal phases is better than nothing. Even as proposed, this guideline does mean something, particularly to those who are involved in establishing a metric for this and similar organizations in the future. Yamaguchi先生 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot agree, as the proposed guideline does not clarify what constitutes a reliable thrid party source. If you read other guidelines relating to verifiability and notability, they consistently require a higher standard for sources that verify notability than any old statement in an article. A reliable third party is not a student newspaper. This article lacks reliable thirdy party sources and that is why I find that notability has not been established using a valid source. Alan.ca 04:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but I don't agree with the charge that the nomination was in bad faith. JamesMLane t c 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It seems many people do not know that an AfD is a debate, not a vote. I attach here a wikilink to the policy for the reading pleasure of those who may not be aware of this fact. Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette Alan.ca 08:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan, please stop patronizing your fellow wikipedians. A word of advise, if you see some 20 plus "Keep" comments and only one "Delete", it is time to back down. Your persistence reflects badly on you and lends credibility to the argument of this being a bad faith nomination. TH 09:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And just to expand a bit on this. What I am trying to say is that when 16 people say "Keep" and only you (the nominator) and one other person say "Delete", it means that your arguments have failed to convince the rest of us and you are not going to achieve a consensus. This is not about voting but about common sense. Repeatedly re-stating your arguments or saying that "this is not a vote" does not make any difference - the consensus is to keep this article. Upon realising this (which you ought to by now), the best course of action is to back down and accept that at this time, the consensus is that such articles stand. You brought your test case, it failed, if you want to bring it or a similar case again at a later time, when the community standards and/or policies may have changed, you are free to do so. But if you simply keep labouring a spent point you will be seen as a troll and lose respect. TH 09:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am repeating the comment every several paragraphs because it amazes me of how few people seem to know what an AfD is about. In fact, through reading, I found that a group has started an AfD patrol to educate people about the guidelines for it. I am more concerned with the lack of understanding of these guidelines than I am about keeping or deleting this particular article. I don't take this AfD personally, I have no interest either way. However, I will be diligent to make certain that famous Canadian politicians will not be associated with this article or fraternity without cited sources. From what I've read, the frat seems to have a positive message, but I have a strong motivitation to protect subjects of living biographies from association with groups of which they may have no association. If we cannot have that, we have a tabloid here. Alan.ca 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what it has to do with the AfD debate. But now that you brought it up let me just add in that I would prefer to add Template:Fact to the questioned people for a while to allow authors to cite sources instead of removing the people outright. It is not as if we are alleging membership of a Nazi party or something, there is nothing inherently negative or positive in being mentioned as a member of a student organization. I do not care enough to get involved though, but I really don't understand why you feel so strongly about this article. TH 13:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To some, a Nazi association is positive, not my opinion, but an opinion. The association of being a member of a group is a serious allegation to make. Keep in mind, I have no knowledge of this fraternity, only from this debate do I learn of them. How about tomorrow, the news media releases an article that claims this frat is a group of such and such or a position on a certain political viewpoint. Now, each member, who may or may not be an actual former or current member has their image affected. This is why, many politicians do not wish to be associated with any groups directly. For this reason in part, I believe we should be very thorough when associating subjects of living biographies (in vivo biographies). Not only does this article associate alleged members with the group, but associates them with eachother. As such, this article should meet the minimum standards of wikipedia and include third party, citable sources. Alan.ca 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, you have convinced me on this point. I agree that it is bad to have famous people listed as members without verifiable citations. This does not change my views on the AfD (that is a separate discussion). TH 11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the cleanup shows its value.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, as in, put your statement in terms of how you find that the nomination criteria have been countermanded? Alan.ca 23:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure lets go over your initial listing points:

1. This article does not have Verifiable Content

   proven false as there are references which back the content provided post cleanup.

2. Is written by members themselves, see the Talk:Sigma_Alpha_Mu and their internal discussion of club literature, therefore it is not a wp:npov and is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

   WP:AUTO is not a deletion criteria, just because someone writes about themself does not mean we delete it, else we'd have to delete Jimbo Wales too.

3. Constitutes Original Research, just read it.

   So does Wikipedia, this is a rationale for a cleanup, not a deletion if the subject is notable and content is verifiable (which as the cleanup has shown it is)

4. Contains no value to wikipedia, in fact may serve to associate subjects of in vivo biographies in a way that may be incorrect.

   Not a valid deletion criteria as applied, your basically claiming a subject which is now referenced is non notable and non encyclopedic. I would argue a social group with numerous chapters in multiple states most certainly passes WP:ORG and WP:BIO.

Have I answered your question?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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.