East Carolina University Greek life: The mere fact that data can be collated does not mean it should be.  CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!  ⚓ 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and North Carolina .  CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!  ⚓ 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a very useful list, allowing students and administrators to easily search whether a fraternal organization or honor society is present on the campus.  The AfD prod is arbitrary.   The Fraternity and Sorority Project has a number of volunteers working to improve these pages, and has an active sub-project to improve this specific type of list page, showing all such organizations on a campus.   I do appreciate the alert that more work on this page is needed, and I agree with that assessment.   As part of our methodical review and effort to improve all these pages we have developed four models for such lists, applied depending on the size of the Greek system and campus.  I also note that List pages have a different criteria for notability discussions on Wikipedia.  Jax MN ( talk ) 00:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid deletion discussion argument.  - Indy beetle ( talk ) 20:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR .  It's an unnecessary content fork from an extremely bloated article that also seriously fails WP:NOT .  It isn't Wikipedia's function to serve as a user's guide to the school and the mother article reads like marketing material for the university.  There's no need for a merge or a redirect as the material is already in the mother article and titles beginning "List of" are not going to provide useful search results.  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 16:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There are more than a million articles in Wikipedia that have some variation of "List of" in their title.  The search engine is designed to pull up these articles.  If you begin entering "East Carolina University" in the search box, this article comes up in the top three suggesions.  In addition, Default Search is added to many articles to enhance search results.  For example, an article like List of Delta Delta Delta chapters has "Delta Delta Delta, list of chapters" as its default sort.  List articles are typically supplemental content to another article and are linked through use of the Main template or the See Also template.  With academic institutions, it is normal to have a seperate linked articles such as a  "List of alumni" or articles that focus on significant academic divisions or various sports.  Rublamb ( talk ) 06:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are absolutely correct.  So if it's redirected to the university article, the university's article will come up first, before the redirect.  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NLIST .  Wikipedia is not a directory service or student guide for activities at.  I'm sure ECU provides those services to its own students.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - WP:NOTDIR does not apply here as it refers to excluding "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."  However, this is not a simple list of Greek letter organizations, but also includes status (active or inactive) as well as the date of charter and range of operation, if applicable.  The list is organized by national affiliation and type of group, providing contextual information.  Furthermore, charter date and inactive organizations are not typically included in a university's directory of possible student activities.  Thus, this is more correctly viewed as an aggregate of historic and current data that is not found elsewhere as a single list.  WP:NLIST says: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be."  With this in mind, I find that this article does meet the criteria for notability because  1) it is about a subject that is already accepted as notable (East Carolina University) and  2) it is a grouping of notable organizations.  Also, I found 2 appropriate sources: Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities and Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities .  WP:NEXIST says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article."  Therefore, it is fine to keep this article even though it currently lacks appropriate citations because these sources exist and can be added later.  So back to the original premiss that this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  My review of two dozen randomly selected articles about universities shows that lists of a college's Greek letter organizations are usually present, whether as part of an article or as a stand-alone list such as this.  That means the majority of editors working on acdemic/education articles have agreed that Greek org content has a place in both these articles and in  Wikipedia.  (And we have the opinion of @ Jax MN from the fraternity project).  I know there are different opinions as to how long a list needs to be before it jumps from a main article to a "list of" article, but this list seems reasonably long to me.  An editor above indicates that this content is duplicated in the main article--it most definitely is not and, therefore, shoud not be deleted before being merged. I say let the fraternal WP determine whether it is best to merge this content back into the ECU article or improve this article. Rublamb ( talk ) 03:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 07:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't past WP:NLIST or WP:GNG , I don't see any independent secondary sources that discuss this specific list of Greek Organizations together out there. Tertiary sources like almanacs or directories of all fraternities in American aren't even focused on ECU Greeks. In a version of Baird's Manual [20] I found online they are discussing the entire fraternities not specific chapters, and they would list the schools that had chapters. The almanac seems to follow Baird's style. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Cannot find independent sources?  Here are two: Fraternity and Sorority Life office, at ECU . University of Illinois Archive (~Baird's Archive) listing all academic Greek Letter organizations and North American campuses . Wikipedia rules regarding Deletion require competence, and elaborate on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." --This AfD appears arbitrary, and ill-supported.  With respect, PROD-ing this article is a dart, tossed by editors without much - or any - engagement in this well-managed category and Project.   I don't mean to be snarky: Some of you might be experts at Australian Rules Football.   I'd never dream of PROD-ing some of the articles you curate from a position of knowledge on that topic.  This article is supported by those with expertise in this category , who support, monitor and update this and similar articles.  There are dozens of citable articles or books noting the Greek Letter Organizations present at the ECU campus, and many thousands of articles about each of the individual societies or chapters themselves.   This list, not subject to consensus rules on notability (thus GNG and NLIST aren't applicable), is nevertheless consistent with predicate, is monitored and updated regularly, and provides an easy and consistent way to get information about which groups serve the campus.  The PROD is completely unnecessary.  Jax MN ( talk ) 19:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your confusing WP:PROD with WP:AFD .  Either way, every article is subject to notability rules, every article is subject to WP:GNG .  You linked NLIST with piping text of "not subject to consensus rules on notability" but the first sentence of what you linked says "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." .  In regards to your two linked sources, the East Carolina University page on Greek life is not independent of Greek Life at East Carolina University, and definitely isn't a secondary source.  For the second link, I already address Baird's Manual/list in my previous comment.  We would need sources that discusses ECU Greeks organization as a group, not a source that list Greek organizations, and happens to mentions ones that are at ECU.  WikiVirus C (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Yes, I did conflate WP:PROD with WP:AFD .   This was clearly an AfD.   The rules for notability differ somewhat for List class articles.  Cordially, I'll point out two errors on your part.   First, the school is independent of its Greek Letter chapters, which operate either under its approval, or fully independently, thus these ARE independent sources.   A mis-behaving or problematic chapter can easily be removed from a campus, should the school determine it does not meet a necessary bar of operational quality.   Second, the older Baird's reference you provided is only one portion of that massive reference.  I included the more recent Baird's Archive as a new reference on the main article, linking to the list of all Greek-letter undergrad organizations on that particular campus.  Jax MN ( talk ) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability for list is different yes, but I was just stated that it was inaccurate in what you said that this list wasn't not subject to consensus rules on notability, it is. I understand the School is independent from the Greek organizations.  Them being able to remove a chapter, isn't relevant to it's independence of source articles.  What we mean by independent is they aren't the topic of the source.  So in regards to a Greek organizations/life at the school, a source from the school wouldn't be independent the same as a source a Greek organization wouldn't be.  The almanac/online directory would be independent.  WikiVirus C (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The name is confusing for non-Americans.  Greek doesn't mean from the country of Greece, but fraternal societies.  There is a world outside of the US that doesn't get these references.  Always try to keep articles properly explained for a world audience.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A reasonable complaint, however, deletion is not the cure.   Such usage (Greek letters) is common for all such societies in the US.  I added an EFN to avoid confusion.  Jax MN ( talk ) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I agree that a name change would be an improvment.  Rublamb ( talk ) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Agreed.  An effort to find a consistent naming convention for the articles in Category:Lists_of_chapters_of_United_States_student_societies_by_college for those that only contain greek letter organizations (and related).  (so Farmhouse doesn't change what the name is, but Paintball club does).  Naraht ( talk ) 19:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This needs references and there are none given.  I'm not looking for sources for a dozen sororities individually.  As it stands, it's a list of things with no proof why we need to know about them.  Why does it have African-American sororities, why are the other ones notable?  Where did all the dates come from?  This could all be invented, with no sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Your 'references' complaint is reasonable, however, deletion is not the cure.   I fixed the problem by adding two significant references, adding a short (expandable) history section, and a section intro that denotes the various governing councils under which each of these groups operate; others may use these references to review that these are not 'invented'.  Note that the University recognizes groups at its own discretion.  Thanks!  Jax MN ( talk ) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've since added several additional references that discuss multiple chapters, governance, and discipline.   A mixed bag, but all are good sources.  As to your comment, "Why does it have African-American sororities?", I don't know what you mean by that.   We don't judge worthiness of the groups, only list that they are there.  Jax MN ( talk ) 21:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I addressed the lack of sources above.  Just because you do not feel like reviewing a source, does not negate its existance.  According to WP:NEXIST we don't delete an article if there are potential sources that can be added at a later date.  According to WP:NLIS , the creator of a list such as this does not need to restate why a given group is notable as that information is stated in a linked article.  Also, the provided dates are most likely listed in the linked article; another indication that this article can be fixed.  If you are curious about why African American sororities exist, follow the link.  That is how linked lists and Wikipedia work.  Rublamb ( talk ) 01:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - to reinforce my delete vote above, this is a list of national organizations that have branches at this school.  WP:BRANCH should also apply.  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 00:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am so glad you mentioned WP:BRANCH as I had not come across it before.  One of its points applies nicely to this situation: "If an embedded list becomes too large for the parent article, consideration may be given to splitting out as a stand-alone list only if there are reliable sources dealing with the list as a topic, as with Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities supporting List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. If an embedded list is too large, but is not notable enough for a stand-alone list, then consider trimming."  Now we have confirmation that Baird's is, in fact, considered a reliable source for this type of list, the remaining issue is whether the list should be merged into the parent (ECU) article or if it is large enough for a stand-alone list/article.  As I have stated above, to me, this list seems reasonably long to split off.  However, I can also understand others believing the the list should be merged into the ECU article.  Would some of those who suggest deleation consider the option of a merger?  Rublamb ( talk ) 03:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Merger?  I don't think so.   Those of us working on the Fraternity and Sorority Project have identified four types of templates we use, when listing the various Greek Letter organizations on North American campuses.   Sure, smaller "Greek systems" may be listed within a college's article; we do that sometimes.  But East Carolina's array of these organizations - including Honor and Professional chapters - is much too varied for such a treatment.   It would lengthen the article far too much.   Thus in keeping with the WP:BRANCH rule, we created this as a standalone, linked page.  Jax MN ( talk ) 05:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you might want to read WP:BLUDGEON too.  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 15:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Anon, I don't see any budgeoning here.  Summary - Fraternity and Sorority Project contributors have improved the page, correcting the fact of *no* references to add now ten seventeen of them, both the necessary secondary sources and those somewhat-related campus-based sources that add detail and are allowable when solid secondary sources are in place.   The article is scheduled for further updates, noting predecessor and dormant organizations per the model we have developed.   These are useful for a variety of readers, not just current students.   (My aim, for example, is to provide a resource for genealogists seeking information about the organizations that family members had been part of, in previous generations.)  The basic history is now written, and awaits further improvement as Wikipedia is a work in progress.   I assume good faith, and hope that the ! delete voters aren't just piling on.  Wikipedia is not served well if our aim as editors is merely to ! delete, ! delete! , ! delete.  Jax MN ( talk ) 18:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Referenced now, and size of the article on East Carolina University does not affect this article unless the article has been trimmed to the point where it makes sense to bring it back in.  Naraht ( talk ) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY does apply, since most of the "contextual information" offered here is unsourced or derived through WP:OR .  The best sources are local news reports declaring when sororities have been shut down for drug-related issues (basically routine crime news) and a 1990 indiscriminate American Greek life directory.  Other sources are from ECU itself, which lack independence.  - Indy beetle ( talk ) 10:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] : Comment : Not to bludgen, but this is not a directory list as it provides added information.  Yes, this acticle could use additional sources, but as stated above, I have found acceptable sources for that information.  I agree that the ECU sources do not meet the standard for notability, but the guidelines are that if appropriate sources exist, the article remains because it can be fixed.  Baird's , which you are refer to as an "indiscrimate American Greek life directory", is speciically mentioned in WP:BRANCH as an example of an appropriate source.  The data that you refer to as original research is, in fact, completely documented in the potential sources--it is not original research, but was added in the article without a link to its source.  As a result, your suggestion to delete based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY , WP:OR , and a lack of sources falls flat.  Rublamb ( talk ) 14:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was said earlier that Baird's does not discuss East Carolina University's Greek life/orgnaizations at all.  It doesn't even list ECU's Greek organizations together.  It only talks and discuss the specific Greek organizations, and happens to mention under the specific Greek Organizations a list of Schools that have chapters, some being ECU.  It is why WP:BRANCH says Baird's is appropriate for List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies , as it discusses Phi Kappa Psi and it's chapters/history in detail.  See page 270-282 of this edition .  The University of Illinois Online Almanac, does lists ECU's Greek organization as one of over 1000 schools in that database.  But it doesn't discuss them at all, it only briefly describes ECU and the different names it went by, and has a single line about the Greeks there that is "Fraternities and sororities occupy houses" ,  then it lists them.  I'm not saying 13 pages of coverage is needed, but 5 words doesn't demonstrate notability.  The issue isn't having sources in article, the issue in notability.  Even if someone was going to consider that one fact that they occupy houses as significant coverage, where is a second source to demonstrate notability?  Article currently has local news talking about a covid update at houses, a few incidents of frats being banned, a housing profile of one sorority, and a handful of primary sources from the school.  It's not about the information in article, it's about the notability being established for this list.  WikiVirus C (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I totally get your line of thought and appreciate your review of the sources.  However, I believe WP:NOTESAL directly addresse your concern.  "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." (Sorry to repeat this quote).  The key here is "in general".  In this example, we have a notable institution, a list of notable organizations, and a source (the Almanac ) that links them.  Baird's comes in to play because it verifies all of the chapters and dates which, as you had indicated in your initial comment, lacked sources.  Baird's also address your concerns about original research.  My approach to reviewing this article this has been  1) this content would be fine as a subsection of the ECU article because there are adequate secondary sources and this type of content is typical in college articles  2) this content meets the standard for a break-away list because it is overly long for a subsection in the ECU article and has sources (existing or potential).  If this article lacks the significant coverage required for a stand-alone aritcle, shouldn't the correct action be to merge this content with the ECU article, rather than deleting it?  Given the large number of this type of article in Wikipedia, I think this discussion and resulting decision has the potential to be far reaching.  There are also other list articles, not on Greek life, that combine data from a wide range of sources and lack a single, independent source on the topic.  If we are going to say that aggregating notable data into a list is original research, then the same would apply to all Wikipedia articles.  The approach to both is the same--finding content and combining it into an article.  The difference is, the content of a list like this is already verified as notable becaue of existing articles in Wikipedia.  Or am I missing something?  Rublamb ( talk ) 17:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of your response isn't directed to me, but to someone else's comment.  I understand the institution is notable and the organizations are notable, my only issue has been the notability of this grouping and a lack of sources to demonstrate its notability.  In regards to the entirety of the list not being documented, I do not have concerns with that.  The list/grouping needs to be discussed as a whole, whether it list each organization isn't the issue.  Lets look at WP:NOTESAL/WP:NLIST : Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables.  Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.  One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.  The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.  Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.  The first part describes notability of the list as whole.  The second, bolded, part describes the items in the list while reiterating "because the group or set is notable".  WikiVirus C (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - WikiVirusC , you are incorrect, regarding the Baird's 20th citation.  I improved the reference by citing the pages (Section II, pp 54-55) that identify social, professional, recognition and honor societies at the specific school, but I realize I have an advantage because I have several copies of Baird's Manual on my shelf.   Would you like me to send you a JPG of the page, where ECU's various chapters are listed?  I think there is evidence that the Deletionists are piling on with this one.  One editor questioned the listing of African-American chapter names, as if that (proud) distinction didn't belong.   Another was apparently unaware of broad acceptance at North American universities of usage of Greek letters in these names.   I added EFN language to clarify, but their ! Delete vote remains.  Remember, Project groups are valuable because participants have expertise in these categories.   Just salting Wikipedia with an AfD or PROD, without context or expertise can constitute bullying.  Rather than attempting to improve the article, for several, the efforts are limited to subjective and narrow complaints of a lack of notability, and an unwillingness to concede that the issues were fixed.   One such terse vote was even anonymous.   We provided many references where there had been none, and we could provide a hundred more.   Doing so becomes an annoying, pedantic exercise which detracts from readability.  So much time has been wasted on this unnecessary AfD...  Jax MN ( talk ) 17:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it simply list the organizations without discussing them, it is same issue I have already mentioned before.  I am not bullying you or anyone else, nor do I think anyone else here is doing so.  I've said my point on notability multiple times, so I won't waste your time any more.  WikiVirus C (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks independent sources supporting that WP:GNG is met.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I could see this existing as a section on a larger article on East Carolina University student life .  BD2412 T 16:27, 28 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete