Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Beta Chi


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Phi Beta Chi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It exists and apparently does some good work, but I am unable to find any evidence of notability. Borderline A7. Star  Mississippi  15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete web search shows no notable coverage. At best, there are some mentions in listings and directories, not enough to establish notability. Rlink2 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. CT55555 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep I've provided some additional cleanup, a comprehensive table of chapters and a number of references since the article was tagged with this unnecessary AfD. It's far more helpful to FIX apparent gaps in references versus rush to delete, as we are not running out of space on our servers. I just did so. About notability: Fraternal and Sorority groups normally reference the seminal reference on the subject, Baird's Manual, which over its 20 editions stretching back 150 years had adopted the rule that to be listed an organization must have formed at least three chapters, OR be a local that owns property, and exist for at least ten years.  Phi Beta Chi clearly meets this standard.  The Fraternity and Sorority Project has adopted that as a reasonable bar to meet for those articles we edit, create and monitor, in keeping with WP guidelines.  There have been tens of thousands of non-notable local chapters that do not merit an article, and approximately 1,500 that do, which are tracked by our Project.  This particular group has chartered 24 chapters and is almost 50 years old. It is extensively referenced in Baird's and noted on the official university portals where it has active chapters.  It has a functional national headquarters and website.  It certainly does not merit deletion. Jax MN (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * you're most certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to debate your points, but absolutely none of that is in line with a speedy keep. Star   Mississippi  20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you may have strong feelings about keeping this article, but please see WP:SKCRIT for the speedy keep criteria. Also regarding the table I don't believe that is encyclopedic - please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you, . I've had a helpful dialog with  regarding several pages, and believe they PRODed this page in good faith.  They noted they understood the rationale I offered for use of the Speedy Keep in this situation, and failing that motion, I'd revert to a simple "Keep". Hence, I provided extensive edits to improve the page, along with references (see below, on RS). It was the timing or potential coordination that concerned me, regarding a succession of deletions of articles about small Christian-themed fraternities and sororities.  These pages needed improvement, not deletion. Further, an article about an innocuous trade association for these groups, the United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities, was itself Swift Deleted without even an AfD process.
 * I get it: These needed more citations, and needed cleanup.  But they needed fixing, not deletion. I reject "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism".
 * To your point on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I agree; but you may be misinterpreting what was added to the table. To explain, I included reference links to portal pages at universities, which we use to prove existence, and notability - not to provide mere contact info.  These are NOT websites owned by individual chapters, but rather, university-owned pages where these groups undergo scrutiny to ensure they are valid, operating and approved student organizations. In practice, some of the newest fraternities and sororities are not yet tracked by our seminal reference, the Baird's Manual and online Archive, so we search for other proof of validity/notability.  Important to their communities, these organizations hum along without generally being the targets of broad media attention.
 * Wikipedia would be a far less helpful tool if we were to limit inclusion of fraternities and sororities only to those with extensive media coverage, major newspaper and journal articles. There are some ~100,000+ known groups, but only 1,473 of these are actively tracked by our project, the F&S Project, and of these, only about half have articles (plus 43 DABs). Removing all but those with a long list of external citations would leave us with only the largest, traditional groups, and those relative few that are notorious for some national scandal, or a few with historically-registered buildings. Wikipedia would thus suppress listing of many of the newer, multicultural or affinity groups -- resulting in a biased outcome.  Yet these organizations exist, and are provable outside of their own websites and postings.  They are recognized by their colleges and universities, and serve significant populations and a continuing flow of members.
 * Technical help request: I'd change my vote to "Keep" rather than speedy keep, as I do not believe Star had any ill-intent, whatsoever. But I don't know if I should edit my original vote or re-vote.  Nor do I want to lose the text of this discussion. Jax MN (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have been happy to provide you United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities in Draft @Jax MN as I have no doubt you'd improve it, but it was an exact copy of their site and was from inception so while it was deleted as a G11, it could well have been a G12. You'll do best to start over on that one. My only concern re: These are NOT websites owned by individual chapters, but rather, university-owned pages where these groups undergo scrutiny to ensure they are valid, operating and approved student organizations is whether that's truly independent, but that's for someone who isn't the nominator to decide. Re: your last point, you can use and on either end of "speedy" or you can leave it as is with this discussion serving as background. It doesn't matter either way. Star   Mississippi  17:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done (strike "Speedy"), and yes, I'd like to work on the UCCFS page in draft form. I've also added another reference to Phi Beta Chi. Jax MN (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it. If it hasn't been a copyright violation, there's no issue with that article existing. I've seen from the Christian sororities article you helped with that you'll leave the Council's in a good place. Thanks re: speedy. Have a great day. Star   Mississippi  18:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as has reliable sources book coverage in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage seems routine and shallow to me. More generally, we are very overweight on US-centric topics, and give them more leeway than is otherwise sensible. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Specific sources have been given and there's not exactly agreement on them. Achieving consensus might be assisted by a source-by-source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -, your rationale doesn't make sense to me. You state that "coverage is routine": yet there is coverage.  This particular group moves along doing what it does, notable to its members and far exceeding the bar of notability with many more than just three chapters (24 to date) and existing for over 44 years where ten years is our standard.  The adjective "Shallow" is subjective. The fact that the US-based Wikipedia is overweight on US-centric topics seems to be a feature, and not a detractor.  --This isn't Wikipedia Italy.  For the same reason that I don't comment on the thousands of articles about Australian rules football, leaving that area to others who have a closer affinity, I'd suggest that the detractor votes here are piling on out of a mistaken sense that Christian Fraternities and Sororities ought to be ignored by this resource, or that somehow, WP is running out of space, also a mistaken point of view. (No offense suggested to Australian rules football.) Jax MN (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By "coverage is routine", I mean that the coverage shown is not of a depth that suggests notability is met. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Generally speaking, I consider national fraternities and sororities with multiple verifiable chapters to be notable per WP:ORG. In this case, all of the chapters that this article lists as being active are indeed listed as organizations on their respective universities' web sites. (By contrast, in Articles for deletion/Delta Psi Epsilon and Articles for deletion/Gamma Phi Delta (fraternity), none of the supposedly active chapters were listed on their respective universities' web sites.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2022 (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.