Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kappa Sigma Grand Conclaves


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Kappa Sigma Grand Conclaves

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable list of frat meetings (see WP:TRIVIA) that does not warrant an article. Most of its sources come from the fraternity itself, and many of its editors are fraternity members. Wikipedia is not a frat's pledge manual. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) — Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This biennial convention is not just a "frat meeting." This is the supreme governing body of an organization that has initiated about a quarter of a million men. NYCRuss  ☎  19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge back into main article. I suspect that the Grand Conclaves are of little note outside the fraternity. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Lists of meetings for the entire organization may be valid and represent an easily separable portion.Naraht (talk) 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Notes about AFD:

To those who prefer a merge, the AFD proposing editor's objection is not that the information is on a seperate page, it is that it exists on Wikipedia at all. From the language, I do not believe that a merge would satisfy the proposing editor.

Also, I find it a little odd that the was used given that neither of the criteria on WP:Before (expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia) or (actual occurance of same) have occured.Naraht (talk)  20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.  This is not a list of notable events, and the list does not serve as a navigational aid.  The only links from this page are to the cities in which the meetings took place.  The meetings themselves are not notable, except perhaps for a "quarter of a million men" (i.e. 0.0037% of the world's population).  A merge to the parent article is possible.    talk 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a good match between this page and any of the 7 examples given in WP:NOTDIR.Naraht (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about WP:GNG then?   talk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty straight forward to me:
 * Significant coverage: The events in the list have been covered by many reliable sources and there is no original research involved.
 * Reliable: All sources are available online for inspection.
 * Secondary Sources: There are a number of secondary sources cited as references, including Histories of American Fraternities in general (not just a single fraternity, but many dozen), coverage in published works of the time, as well as coverage from local newspapers.
 * Independent of the subject: The most frequently cited sources are not affiliated with the organization.
 * jheiv talk  contribs 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:NOT. The article consists of a list of dates and locations. Since the organization is still in existence, the best thing would be for them to list this information on their own website. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep -- this is a listing of biennial meetings of a historically notable organization. Similar listings concerning a single organization are commonplace on wikipedia (see below) and, as noted by Naraht above, do not seem to fit the examples in WP:NOT.

jheiv talk  contribs 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists concerning a single organization:
 * List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology dormitories
 * List of Google products
 * List of Marvel Comics characters
 * List of films based on Marvel Comics
 * List of AMD microprocessors
 * List of acquisitions by Google
 * List of Disney theatrical animated features
 * List of Bilderberg participants
 * Lists of relatively small independent notability:
 * List of songs in Rock Band 2
 * List of Doctor Who serials
 * List of Crayola crayon colors
 * List of games with DirectX 10 support
 * The listing also has a clear and defined scope, unlike lists like:
 * List of companies of the United States
 * List of films considered the worst
 * List of prizes, medals, and awards
 * List of breakfast cereals
 * List of knots
 * There is also a lot of precedent for separating these lists out from the main article, many of which are shown above but also include lists like:
 * List of U.S. executive branch czars
 * Lastly, precedent for the exact same type of article elsewhere (NB: Kappa Sigma is older than each of these):
 * List of Omega Psi Phi Grand Conclaves
 * List of Phi Beta Sigma conclaves
 * List of Sigma Tau Gamma National Meetings


 * There's no precedent involved in the last three, as none of them has ever been subjected to AFD. Frankly I think they ought to be deleted for the same reasons that apply to this article. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The precedent is in the fact that they exist in article-space. But you haven't addressed any of the other lists that I've shown that also exist -- lists that seem to exist despite one or more of your disagreements.  jheiv  talk  contribs 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already discussed the lack of notability of List of Omega Psi Phi Grand Conclaves with the main creator of that article. These articles have no place on Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see OTHERSTUFF for the explanation of why your argument is not compelling. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * E/C: I'm aware of that essay. Thanks for having me re-read it though.  Consider the following, from the essay you cited:
 * In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.
 * Also, This discussion might be instructive and address some of the expressed concerns.  jheiv  talk  contribs 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Crayola crayon colors has many secondary sources about individual colors, and about Crayola crayon colors as a group. The "grand conclave" articles above have little or no sourcing. What sourcing they do have is primary or "trivial", and the topic of all conclaves has no sources whatsoever. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get this stuff. The Crayola list has two non-crayola sources that mention individual colors, one is simply a list of colors, and the other discusses 8 colors -- this seems far from "many secondary sources". Also, did you read the article about the Conclaves? Every conclave listed has at least one, sometimes up to four sources. Your classification of "trivial" is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but in this case, that is really all your comment amounts to. jheiv talk  contribs 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to point out that sources that are published by the organization are fine for using as sources when the material is not contentious. Would the it be appropriate to say that Florida State University is the "best school in the nation" and use as a source their program guide?  Clearly, it would not be.  However, would it be appropriate to say that Google's revenue last quarter was 3.152B USD and use as a source their annual report?  Absolutely.
 * That being said, the majority of the references in this article come from publications not published by the organization. jheiv  talk  contribs 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More Fraternity / Sorority National Meeting Lists: jheiv talk  contribs 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Phi Kappa Psi Grand Arch Councils
 * List of Delta Sigma Theta National Conventions
 * Alpha Phi Omega national conventions
 * List of Zeta Phi Beta grand boules
 * The solution to the latter is to nominate them all for deletion on the same grounds as for the present article. Mangoe (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way -- I'm not sure deleting this and seven other well-developed and excellently-sourced (comparatively) articles is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I'll also note that your suggestion of merge above troubles me as it introduces unnecessary clutter into the organization's main article.  I'll also reiterate my opinion that lists composed of elements that are not necessarily themselves notable, are commonplace on Wikipedia as shown in the lists I provided.  Also note the large number of lists that are composed of Fraternity / Sorority national presidents, each of which probably are not notable individually, but when taken as a whole, a good reference and considered article-worthy.  Similarly, I believe the same logic can be applied to the numerous lists of Fraternity / Sorority chapters.  I respect your opinion, but I have to say, I disagree with your opinion of what to do with these types of articles.  I hope we can solidify a policy within the Fraternity / Sorority Wikiproject when this AfD is complete.  jheiv  talk  contribs 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is extremely unlikely that articles on fraternities and sororities will be be given special permission to violate Wikipedia rules WP:N, WP:PSTS, WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For WP:PSTS, there are both references from Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities and references from Newspapers about the Conclaves. Regardless of what other sources are, having an event rate an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in three different years where it occurs seems to satisfy both WP:PSTS and WP:N. Which piece of WP:NOT did you wish to bring up? I don't see these pages matching with Personal Pages, File Storage, Dating Services or Memorials. Again, for WP:NOTDIR, which of the 7 entries in there, do you think the article applies to?Naraht (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentions of a meeting in the local paper are more primary than secondary. Webhosting means "a type of Internet hosting service that allows individuals and organizations to make their own website accessible via the World Wide Web." This material is of interest only to members of that organization, and it is not appropriate to Wikipedia's servers to host it. It belongs on the organiation's own servers or Facebook. WP:NOT. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Grand Conclave wasn't in Atlanta for three of the (now) four mentions in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A meeting that occurs in Philadelphia (1900) or St. Louis (1904) of a national group that is covered in Atlanta is certainly *not* a primary source. As for whether or not "This material is of interest only to members of that organization", I'm not a member of Kappa Sigma, In fact I'm not a member of any Social Fraternity.Naraht (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep This list meets WP:list and it is a list of notable events on a notable organization. It clearly qualifies as a standalone list, not to be merged into the main article. Inclusion criteria are clear, concise and not indiscriminate.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (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.