Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Mu Delta


 * 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. Consensus is that WP:GNG is not met for lack of appropriate sources. The "keep" arguments, made in a bludgeoning manner, are unpersuasive. They consist mainly of references to Wikiproject pages that are not community-adopted guidelines or policies and therefore have no weight in deletion discussions.  Sandstein  13:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigma Mu Delta

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

No coverage I could find from independent sources. Scouring LinkedIn previews suggested there are ~30 students in a chapter. It's a decent article but does not seem to meet WP: GNG at present. Kazamzam (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Fraternity and Sorority Project supports a clear set of notability rules for this category, respecting general Wikipedia guidance, where regional or national organizations with three or more chapters, which have existed for 10 years or longer will meet a reasonable interpretation of WP's notability requirements. Additional factors are discussed on our Watchlist's talk page, such as whether a group has gained notoriety (or has been discussed) in popular media, or mention in yearbooks, in Baird's Manual or the online archive, or on campus portals, or if they own real property, etc.  These factors are an attempt by Project participants to clarify for this class of organizations the general aim of requiring notability.  Sigma Mu Delta meets our general bar, as they have/had three chapters and now have existed for more than 25 years. The fraternity also lists real property. While not noted in Baird's, which presently does not track professional or honor societies, SMD meets other indicators of notability. Lest anyone assume we would claim notability too readily for small or new groups, for comparison, there are or have been over 250,000 local, regional, national or international fraternities and sororities.  Only a tiny fraction are supported by our Project as notable, numbering under 2,000 at this writing.  While small and fairly young, Sigma Mu Delta is allowable by our consistent application of these rules. Jax MN (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your response, I appreciate this input from the Fraternities and Sororities Project. In re: to your note about the project-defined criteria, having reviewed it, it seems that this fraternity doesn 't meet the WP-specific criteria. Here is my overview:
 * 1) Listed in an edition of Baird's or in the Baird's Archive Online Almanac - obviously no, as you mentioned.
 * 2) Listed on a college or university website - I'm split on whether the fraternity as a comprehensive entity meets this requirement. I could only find a university website for the Berkeley chapter (included in the external links section). The parent/Alpha chapter does not have a website. Actually, I found that their registration had been revoked at UC Davis due to hazing incidents. That can be added as a source/update but I don't think qualifies as an indicator of notability as it's not their official lists of student organization. There might be an archived list somewhere although I haven't found it.
 * 3) Not in the yearbooks I could review under Gbooks (doesn't mean it's not there though).
 * 4) Profiled in a print publication - no. - the above link was a passing mention
 * 5) Own or lease real estate property - I was not able to find evidence of owning property (i.e. reviewing the constitution of the Berkeley chapter, search results, etc.). Can you provide a source for your statement above?
 * 6) Comprehensive website as a homepage - no. There are a few Instagram pages that are by name associated with the different chapters but they are defunct; there are some Facebook pages that haven't been updated since 2018/2019, but again, not a comprehensive website. The link in the infobox is dead (now tagged as such).
 * 7) Profiled as a significant contributor for regular charitable giving - no evidence of such outside of their own affiliated sites.
 * While I agree with your above points that this regional organization has three or more chapters and has existed for 10 years or longer (clearly criteria that the topic does meet), I don't believe they meet the above criteria required per the WP Talk page ("To objectively show notability, a local (standalone) chapter must meet one or more of the foregoing (numbered) conditions" and must show the criteria you mentioned).
 * I think my comments make a decent argument against notability but it's your topic area so please advise. I think a redirect to the UC Davis Greek life section would also be acceptable if preferred to deletion. Thank you for your help with this. Kazamzam (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your engagement in this discussion. I found a few items that speak to validity, showing that the schools themselves see the fraternity as a member of their communities.  One of these is the Constitution of the Beta chapter from UC Berkeley. There are portal pages, such as the portal at UC Berkeley to their local group.  Next, I note that the Alpha chapter has been placed on an indefinite revocation (~unknown duration), see the local chapter being listed for the hazing issue, here, which is actually quite uncommon among US-based professional fraternities.  Odd...  Third, I note that where I thought in my quick skim of Google that I saw a Guidestar page, it was a false lead.  Looking for it, it noted a "Davis Foundation" which is unrelated, but I saw a second link to what I consider an tangential reference to a $1.7M 'medical foundation' under the Sigma Mu Delta name, here. --Pretty tiny for a foundation. But that may be an innocent pick-up by the datanyze group to simply reference a property owned by the group, assuming it was a charitable foundation.  That dollar amount is not uncommon for similar fraternity buildings. With the fact of their Alpha chapter suspended for hazing they have other things to worry about, IMHO. Finally, as we deal with organizations that can be 200 years old - certainly not this one - we occasionally find small organizations that have gone dormant yet are still notable:  The fact of dormancy does not disqualify a group from consideration as "notable", and is one of Wikipedia's rules that notability does not diminish over time.  I.e.: if it was once notable, it can still claim to have met that bar.
 * I fully agree that this isn't a widely publicized group. But I think it is notable enough to merit a page.  I also agree it needs additional citations. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we have plenty of space, since we can be reasonably certain Sigma Mu Delta exists and that they've existed for 25 years, they meet the bar for inclusion here.  Jax MN (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1) The WP Fraternity/Sorority guideline for notability is not a checklist that must be completely met. Rather a single factor, such as a listing in Baird's, or a combination of items suffices. However, this misunderstanding of how the WP uses this guideline makes it clear that we need to be more specific in defining its use. I believe this fraternity does pass muster by the WP guideline, especially given the challenges in finding sources for professional fraternities. 2) Government recognition: They definitely are not listed in GuideStar or in the California database of nonprofits, but that just means they are not registered/incorporated as a charity with the IRS or the State of California. While I like a listing on GuideStar as it is a fantastic independent source, a lack of an entry there does not exclude a group from notability. In addition, they did register for a  U.S. Patent/Trademark for their Greek letters, providing a federal publication that is now as a source for the article. 3) Professional Affiliation - another indicator of notability that the WP likes to see if membership is a professional organization. Obviously, this group lacks such affiliation but they are sponsored by the Associated Students of the University of California which is an autonomous nonprofit with a Wikipedia article. 4) I believe I found enough sources to resolve the primary complaint of a lack of citations. I used existing sources to back unreferenced text, found new sources via a more-focused Google search and through the California newspaper archive, and used Wayback Machine to recapture defunct websites (that is still in progress as each page/update was not captured every time). The sources were out there, just not readily available through Wikipedia's links. Having said that, I also removed much of the unsourced text and rewrote sections that were copied directly from an old version of their website. 5) I agree that this group still lacks major coverage in an independent publication to establish general notability. However, after now reviewing the newly found references and having worked on many articles for the WP F/S, I find this group did meet the WP standard when the article was originally written and when their website was live. Given that they lost the founding chapter when COVID hit, it is understandable that there is a gap in website maintenance. I say keep. Rublamb (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - just a note, the founding chapter had its recognition revoked in 2019, pre-COVID, due to incidents of hazing, per the UC Davis website. Kazamzam (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Response to Comment - Alpha chapter's charter was evoked in November 2019. Colleges were only in session for two weeks of December and that was exam season. Students would have only been back on campus for two weeks in 2020 when the U.S. declared a public health emergency due to COVID. Colleges started shutting down social activities and limiting the size of gatherings. All University of California campuses stopped having in-person classes on March 10, 2020. By the time students returned to campus in the fall of 2021, much of their leadership (and probably their webmaster) would have graduated. For many fraternal orders, surviving the pandemic was a challenge. We don't know the numbers yet, but based on updates I have been making to other articles, some social fraternities/sororities lost 1/3 to 1/2 of their chapters during COVID. I stand by my comment that it is reasonable that the fraternity's websites went down in 2020 and is not necessarily a reflection of non-notability. Also, it ends up that the main fraternity's website was just a landing page that linked to three stand-alone websites. Rublamb (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for the extensive work to improve references for this article, . I'd missed several of these in my own search. Jax MN (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article was nominated for deletion on the basis of notability because of a lack of secondary sources and a small membership. Addressing the latter first, the group has a life membership of more than 800 which is within the norm for a small GLO with three chapters and less than thirty years of operation. Furthermore, WP:ORGSIG says that "smaller organizations and their products can be notable." From the standpoint of the WP Sorority and Fraternity, this group meets our threshold for notability because it is listed on university websites, it has 3 (now 2) chapters, and it has existed for nearly 30 years. In addition, the article has been updated since its initial nomination. With the exception of a few indicated sentences, the article now has an ample number of sources, with most being secondary sources such as a Federal publication, newspapers, and university websites (secondary because they are not controlled by the fraternity). Although not all of these sources can be described as significant coverage, there are enough for the purposes of this discussion, especially when combined with the endorsement of the WP to retain. The article itself is reasonably well-written, grammatically correct, and neutral in tone. There is every expectation that this article will continue to improve as new sources become available, especially now that it is included in the watchlists of unaffiliated WP volunteers.Rublamb (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * :You have already voted, please strike the "keep" from one and make it a comment. Star   Mississippi  14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The main problem here is a lack of independent reliable sources that discuss Sigma Mu Delta in depth, and while the article is certainly in much better shape than it was a few weeks ago, the references that have been added are largely just passing mentions in the press, the fraternity's website, and other sources that don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. I searched for better sources but was unable to find anything that would add up to notability. And per WP:CONLEVEL, a WikiProject's views on notability don't take precedence over the community consensus that articles about organizations need "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: An analysis and discussion of the available sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 06:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for reviewing for additional sources, as we have done. Project supporters will continue to do so, and have improved the article over the past few weeks.  Wikipedia is a work in progress; this organization continues to operate and do its work on its campuses.  Project supporters have long realized that, unlike controversial subjects, or groups that have misbehavior complaints among the various fraternities and sororities, media coverage is scant.  The truism remains, that "Scandal sells papers and delivers media coverage", even while the many groups that quietly operate without publicity, and without seeking notoriety, these still are valuable, clarifying additions to Wikipedia. I find, and believe I speak for many readers interested in these organizations on various campuses, that it creates an unbalanced perception of the nature of all such fraternities and societies if we were to only allow articles for those groups where there is salacious media coverage or where an organization is relatively large.  With 800 living members, yes, this group is fairly small, but valid, and deserves a page.  Wikipedia has the space, and this article simply shows that we acknowledge that fact. To attempt to kill all articles for benign, quietly-operating groups does a disservice to readers. Jax MN (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment - I'd like to point out that while it's great that WikiProject Fraternities & Sororities has come up with a list of specific requirements for a fraternity/sorority to be considered notable, it's important to note that this list of requirements is not a WP policy or guideline, and doesn't overrule the requirement for every WP article to be backed up by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, regardless of its inclusion in a WikiProject. I've relisted this discussion in the hopes that an analysis and discussion about the available sources (and whether they satisfy WP:GNG) can take place here, rather than an analysis of WikiProject rules, which aren't particularly relevant here, and can only really serve as a guide to quickly estimate the likelihood that a fraternity/sorority has received significant coverage in reliable sources. However, if challenged, those sources need to be provided, or else the article will be deleted, even if it satisfies the WikiProject's rules.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 06:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - whilst I understand how wikiprojects feel ownership of pages they have worked on, I see no reason why the WP:GNG shouldn't remain the standard for inclusion. At best it appears that the refs offered are local newspapers, student newspapers and university websites. None of those meet the normal standards of the GNG. Owning a building has nothing to do with it nor does the number of members and alumni. So all we are left is a call to ignore the normal notability criteria, and I can't see there is an overwhelming reason to do that. Get a historian to write a book or article about the history of the organisation and then try rewriting the page. JMWt (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:GNG is not optional. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Response -The WikiProject did not create this article but used our internal criteria to determine if it was worth defending in this challenge. There are literally thousands of local fraternal groups that we deem unworthy of a Wikipedia article. As I understand it, we met the original challenge that the article lacked sources and, now, there is an added challenge regarding the quality of the those source. Since I found most of those sources, I appreciate the chance to discuss them. @JMWt mentions student newspapers and university websites, so these are the specific sources I will verify against WP:GNG.
 * Reliable - As required, the student newspaper and universities websites are published sources. As required, these sources cover a range of time, and do not constitute breaking news that has not had time to be fact checked. WP:NEWSORG says that "news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." The California Aggie began in 1915, meeting the criteria for well-established. In addition, this student newspaper is, according to this article by the FIRE Foundation, overseen by a Media Board that is appointed by the university's administration. The California Aggie has a Wikipedia article, confirming that it is a notable source. The university websites included in the challenged article are the University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Santa Cruz, and University of California, Davis. I assume there is no issue with the notability and/or reliability of these institutions, but I dug deeper for the purposes of this discussion. UC Berkeley has a department of Communications & Public Affairs to oversee its communications. According to its webpage, this department is "staffed by experienced reporters and broadcast journalists." Although I did not review the biographies/resumes of this staff, the university is defining this office as professional journalists, with an implied code of ethics. The UC Santa Cruz Communications & Marketing office's mission statement includes providing content that is "accurate, credible". This department also provides policies and guidelines for the university's website. I agree that university websites might portray student organizations in a positive light and might lack neutrality. However, WP:BIASED says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In addition, UC Davis actually demonstrates its lack of bias by publishing negative content about the fraternity, noting hazing violations and a penalty. Thus, both the campus newspaper and the university websites meet the standard of being reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia content.
 * Sources - The newspaper and the university websites were not created by the subject of the article and are, therefore, secondary sources. The challenged article also has more than one secondary source, meeting the WP:GNG requirement: "since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage...multiple sources are generally expected".
 * Independent of the subject - The student newspaper and university websites were not created by the fraternity and therefore meet this standard. In the case of the newspaper, the articles have bi-lines and demonstrate a reporter/writer interacting with people, rather than copying a press release. Yet, this may be the most challenging criteria to explain as there is an inherent relationship between universities and fraternities. However, one of the cited references says that, at UC Berkeley, the relationship between the university and the fraternity is managed by a campus advisor and the Berkeley LEAD Center Student Organization Advising. The Lead Center webpage describes it role as recognizing student groups (RSOs), providing facilities and insurance for RSO events, and helping RSOs gain asses to campus resources. However, the LEAD Center notes "It is important to note that RSOs are separate entities from the University, and RSO programs, events, and activities do not represent UC Berkeley". Thus, the student newspaper and the university public affairs offices or even the LEAD Center are not the fraternity and do not represent the fraternity when they publish information and articles about the fraternity. These sources are, in fact, independent of the subject as required by Wikipedia.
 * Significant coverage - This requirement does not specify the length of significant coverage, but defines it as something between a book and trivial coverage. I hope we can all agree that a newspaper article meets this standard. The California Aggie  ran "Bone Marrow Drive Aims to Draw Underrepresented Groups for Test" and "Panel to Feature MCAT Review Course Representatives" which are articles about events sponsored by the fraternity. The other instance of significant coverage is "Sigma Mu Delta | CA Link" published by UC Berkeley. This is a short feature covering the fraternity's activities, history, and other chapters. I believe any concerns about the neutrality of this content were addressed above under Reliable.
 * Presumed - Since coverage alone is not a guarantee of the need for an article, WP:GNG encourages "a more in-depth discussion." To me, this is where the members of WikiProject Fraternities & Sororities can really help because we have each looked at hundreds of articles covering this subject matter. Recently, I reviewed eight draft fraternity articles by non-WP editors and found that only two of the organizations came close to meeting the criteria for notability as I searched for sources. Another WP member challenged me to dig deeper for content and sources on one of those two before agreeing to publish the article. We don't believe all fraternal groups need articles, nor do we defend content that does not fit the standards for Wikipedia. If a U.S. fraternity/sorority formed prior to 1991 and is notable, it was included in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, but this fraternity was formed after Baird's ceased publication so we have to look elsewhere. With regards to fraternal histories, there are many out there and most are authored by historians and scholars—who are members of the fraternity. These biased sources are something that WP members are used to reviewing and evaluating. As a result, I find that brief mentions of a fraternity in newspaper and university articles are more important as a citation than a book of puffery because being independent is more important than length when determining reliability. @Jax MN is correct that some fraternities can have thousands of members at hundreds of campuses in the United States and abroad, and still have only been covered by local newspapers or the university unless there is a hazing scandal or a significant violation of university policy. This type of low profile does not mean that a fraternity lacks notability by Wikipedia's standards. As in this instance, the sources provided can and do meet the criteria to document notability.
 * I also want to apply the concept that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The variety and number of secondary sources already found through quick Google searches show a pattern of media coverage of the subject over many years. There is every expectation that new sources will emerge or already exist to improve this article. As new sources are found, this article can be enhanced and expanded, along with removing primary sources and/or content not backed by reliable sources. This article is already better than many stub/start class articles in Wikipedia, with reasonably good prose, many reliable sources, and a neutral/encyclopedic tone. This article now has oversight by a WikiProject that has guidelines, active members, and a willingness to reject and/or replace inappropriate content. There are editors involved that have no connection to the subject of the article and no desire for self-promotion. This article, like all of Wikipedia, is a work in progress. It should be allowed to progress and grow. Rublamb (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The notability of the sources covering a topic has no bearing on that topic's notability. Statements describing a campus organization on that university's website are not independent because they are affiliated with the subject (despite not being the same) and normally written by the subject itself. Meanwhile, per WP:AUD, an organization's notability cannot be proven solely by coverage in local media (of which college newspapers are the foremost example). I see no sources that aren't either a hosting college or student newspaper. Neither are sufficient to demonstrate notability. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Response: The notability of sources equates to reliability which is a requirement of WP:GNG. It, in fact, does matter when evaluating the quality of the references which is what is in question in this challenge. I have provided documentation and sources regarding the separation of the fraternity and the university and its publication. Your statement that the university and fraternity are not independent and that content in question was written by the group is your opinion, not fact, which does not trump documentation. With regards to WP:AUD, it says that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The first source in the article,  Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office: Trademarks. U.S. Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office. 2005 qualifies as a national source. Note that WP:AUD does not specify that this source must provide significant coverage, simply that it must be a source. In addition, the students, alumni, potential students, and parents of students of these universities live across the state of California, across the United States, and internationally; therefore, the audience is not just local but statewide, national, and international. Rublamb (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability does not equal reliability. See the Daily Mail, Breitbart, CGTN, and dozens of other examples at WP:RSP that are both notable and deprecated because they are unreliable.
 * Universities are not independent of fraternities for our purposes. Dependence is not limited to "one created the other." Per WP:NORG, related organizations include business partners and associates. You yourself observed that the University of California provides facilities, insurance, and other resources to Sigma Mu Delta; this is obviously a business relationship. I could also point to other facets of the relationship, like how Sigma Mu Delta and other fraternities provide robust social networks and thereby help universities with things like alumni outreach and connecting students with jobs. The point of all of this is that universities are interested and involved in the activities of fraternities, including an interest in promoting those things by writing about them, and are therefore not independent of the subject for notability purposes. This is, of course, assuming that UC staff and not ΣΜΔ members wrote them, which is obviously not the case in, e.g., UC Berkeley's page, which uses first person pronouns to describe the organization.
 * It is literally not true that WP:AUD does not mention significant coverage, read the second sentence again. Additionally, it says national or international media; the US Patent and Trademark Office is not media, it is a government body, and anything it publishes is a primary source which does not contribute to notability. Meanwhile, The California Aggie is written by students, for students, and unlikely to be read by anyone not involved with the college. Sigma Mu Delta's membership obviously does not affect The California Aggie ' s readership. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Response Yes, WP:AUD talks about significant coverage and media. However, I will quote again "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." It does not say "one significant source" its says "one...source". It does not say media, it says source. A book is a source. And, even if it did say media, a book is mass media, under the subsection of print media. Your belief that anything published by a government body is a primary source is unfounded and, frankly, absurd. In this instance, the primary source would be the trademark application/paperwork from the fraternity. However, the government publication summarizes those primary sources, making this a secondary source Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The second sentence says: Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. You are supposed to know to resupply the adjective "significant" from the second sentence into the third. This section tightens the sourcing requirements for organizations, not weakens them: it is not a magic wand by which every organization that has ever been mentioned by an institution of national reach becomes notable if anyone else reliable has talked about them.
 * I disagree with your opinion that the government's report of all the trademarks it granted is a secondary source, but it is irrelevant: the coverage is not significant and not even directly about the organization (just its trademark). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Response: Mr. or Ms. Compassionate, you've made a very broad statement, unsupported, that collegiate media articles are "normally written by the subject itself." This is conjectural, and in no way accurate for the majority of colleges, certainly not for the three state schools which are home to Sigma Mu Delta.  These are not tiny colleges with a couple of writers toiling on a weekly news sheet, who beg for filler content.  These are long-standing publications with professional and student staff, operating (and teaching) under principles of journalistic codes.  It's akin to saying that because I shop at the same grocery as a neighborhood bully, that I am somehow affiliated.  This would be an equivalent logical fallacy.  The article clearly meets the standard of notability. Jax MN (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, I meant that pages describing Sigma Mu Delta on the University's websites were probably written by its members (or other involved persons), not student newspaper articles. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter either way; student newspapers are only written for the interest of students and faculty of the university and generally only write about things that a directly relevant to them. There is absolutely no way to tell if the author of the newspaper article was independent of the organisation in question. Similarly, the university recognising (or not recognising) a student organisation such as this is very weak evidence of notability. The university likely recognises the chess team that doesn't mean that the university chess team is therefore notable. The fact is that outside of the university community very few have taken much notice of this organisation. Unless there is media coverage totally outwith of the university community, it isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your argument that there is no way to tell if the author of a newspaper article is independent of the subject is interesting and would have a far reaching impact to Wikipedia if taken at face value across all newspapers. Journalism is a profession with a code of ethics. If the publication is professional and reliable, there is an assumption of the reporter's independence from the subject of the article--unless stated otherwise. I frequently find guest pieces in campus newspapers and other newspapers that cite the authors relationship to the subject, such as a student belonging to an organization or playing on an athletic team. Online versions of campus newspapers almost always link to short bio of the writer. In this instance, I am looking at an article written by a senior editor of the Aggie. In evaluating this person's independence from the fraternity, it is more likely than not that a senior editor of the newspaper is not a pre-med student and, therefore, is not a member this fraternity exclusively for pre-med students. However, from your position, this doesn't matter because this is a campus newspaper. So, let's look at the source from a local newspaper, The Press-Tribune of Roseville, CA. Granted, this is a mention rather than a feature, but it does represent coverage totally outside of the university community. I also added Hlaudy, Korey (2011-03-15). UC Davis 2012. College Prowler. ISBN 978-1-4274-9714-7. Now there are three sources not linked to the fraternity or the campus--two books and one newspaper article. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, you are seriously trying to tell us that the College Prowler book reference is useful for determining notability. It's a single line in a table on one page. I'm not clear what you think this proves, but it doesn't. JMWt (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I also forgot the the Day of Difference website if for a foundation in Australia. Rublamb (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Can !keep voters stop it with the WP:BLUD? I think we all understand the position now. We don't need any more walls of text as responses. JMWt (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I felt the need to expand and clarify my defense because this challenge changed its focus and the deletion discussion was been extended to a third week after the first two attempts did not secure a majority of negative votes. Rublamb (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you've been but AfD decisions are not determined by a majority vote but by the quality of the argument weighed against policy. JMWt (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. That is why I have expanded my response (as my earlier comments were apparently not clear enough to end the debate). Rublamb (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you have not ended the debate as I dispute all of your conclusions. JMWt (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per Extraordinary Writ. Neither WP:ORGDEPTH nor WP:GNG are established. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm pleased to have found yet another reference for this group. The Baird's Archive had them under men's groups, not co-ed groups where I had previously looked. Also, I note that the OP had indicated they only had some ~30 members.  The accurate count is 800, and like other professional fraternities, those aren't just initiates whose involvement ceases upon graduation.  This organization appears to continue networking and peer correspondence during members' professional careers. Jax MN (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Response - This addition provides the significant non-local source that many have indicated was missing for this article. The online Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities continues in the tradition of the print series Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities that, for more than a century, was the leading authority on notable Greek letter organizations. As with Baird's, the Almanac is selective in which groups are included. This is not a list of every fraternal organization, but only those deemed noteworthy by historians with expertise in the field. In addition, the Almanac is hosted by the library of the University of Illinois, an institution with not affiliation with Sigma Mu Delta. Rublamb (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is literally just an entry in a list. There isn't any prose, much less a significant amount of it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From WP:ORG: "If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source..." This is one of those exceptions where being in a list is not considered trivial trivial. Rublamb (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the purpose of that section. It is saying that if we had, for example, a list of "top-ten fastest growing tech companies" that had a paragraph discussing each of those companies, that list would not constitute significant coverage because the list itself is trivial; you get stuff like that all the time from churnalism. The footnote is clarifying that lists notable for their prestige are exempted from this carve-out. This does not change the requirement that the list itself contain significant coverage of the subject; note that the final line in this list of examples of trivial coverage is listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization; Baird's manual is an example of this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not misunderstand; the section in question is clearly exempting some lists from being considered trivial, following a sttement that most lists are considered trivial. Baird's is an excellent resource that includes each organization's history, symbols, notable members, and chapters, as well as a discussion of the organization role in the overall history of GLOs, as applicable. The Almanac, which is a newer resource, continues in the tradition of Baird's but could not reproduce copyrighted text from Baird's. Thus, the two resources work in tandem, with one providing an historical overview and the other providing current (updated monthly) information on chapters and status. Unfortunately, groups such as Sigma Mu Delta that were established after Baird's final edition in 1991, never received the introductory/history treatment. Nevertheless, these two resources--Baird's and the Almanac are the definitive source for information GLOs and in determining whether or not an organization is notable. There is no higher or better resource on GLOs. As a result, it is a reference that should have significant weight, with or without an added paragraph of text. The Almanac, the Australian foundation's website, and the U.S. Patent Office book collectively prove that there is interest in this group beyond the campus--these three are not a huge articles, but they also are not trivial coverage. The campus and local newspapers do provide significant coverage. Rublamb (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am concerned over the rush to delete this article, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. We have made great strides to improve it over the past three weeks.  With 800+ living members, all in the medical field, this population is not trivial.  Health professionals routinely reference their school associations within their curriculum vitae, (resumes), and it is natural for some of their dozens of patients each day seeking care to take note of these and investigate what the associations are, either from website acknowledgement or from researching the certificates proudly displayed on their office walls.  Hence, far more than 800+ members would seek to understand what "Sigma Mu Delta" is.  While I understand that Wikipedia is rife with publicity seeking artists, inconsequential wanna-be 'influencers' and the rest, this organization, now 29 years old, doesn't at all strike me as publicity seeking nor is it inconsequential.  Wikipedia's readers are not served by limiting Wikipedia's offerings on the various helpful collegiate organizations to only those relative few where members get into trouble and thereby net the broad media coverage that comes with such negative actions. Indeed, such a limitation would effect an unwarranted imbalanced impression that denies the benefits provided by such groups, most of which are valuable, if quiet performers. As a Project volunteer I see many local, new chapters who draft articles, and I discourage many of these as not notable.  This is why we identified a set of rules, fully in keeping with the general guidance on notability, but which set a rather high bar for our efforts to include them.  There may be 200,000 such locals, current or in the past, but only a few of these would qualify as notable, to our practiced view.  This group exceeds that bar.  Sigma Mu Delta is far more than a passing campus club.  Its members showcase and advocate the value of their membership throughout their professional careers. To kill this article now is unnecessarily Deletionist, and would make Wikipedia less valuable.  Jax MN (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've already heard the argument that the wikiproject is special and that your special pages shouldn't have to follow policy. Several times now. WP:BLUD JMWt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2023 (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.