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, narrowly, and with a suggestion to refactor the subject into an article incorporating a list, rather than structuring it as a list. BD2412 T 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology fraternities, sororities, and ILGs

The article has been revised extensively since it was nominated for deletion. See versions from 21 Jun 2020 or earlier for the old versions, versus the new version. Wikipedia:EDITATAFD Jax MN ( talk) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology fraternities, sororities, and ILGs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is a list of non-notable entities with a significant amount of fluff and unreferenced content. In a similar category as the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories and the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology undergraduate dormitories EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Trimmed definitely, My question is whether you consider (just to pick one of the organizations) Delta Tau Delta to be a non-notable entity (and as such would support deleting that Article). I agree it can be trimmed down a lot, and better references are needed, but if the question is ultimately whether an article with the core information can exist, I believe that it can. Naraht ( talk) 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'd reduce the language extolling the virtues of each individual chapter and leave that for the rush brochure. But this is an historic system with a history of almost 150 years. Its milestones should be noted, including high water mark for participation, notable downturns, and overall population measures. Jax MN ( talk) 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Respectfully, neither of these comments address my concerns about having significant coverage in independent secondary sources, nor about this being anything but a directory, and while I respect the knowledge you both bring to this discussion, you both appear to have somewhat significant conflicts of interest in this topic. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not an MIT grad, nor is User:Naraht. Hence while we may have specialties in the area of collegiate and post-grad societies, among other topics, I don't see a conflict of interest. To your point, we have been discussing resources for additional references to improve the page, which I think is a reasonable objective. Jax MN ( talk) 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm working on substantial re-write of the page in order to get rid of fluff and add extensive references. Jax MN ( talk) 20:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

An example of how the page would look, and a longer discussion of improvements, is at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology fraternities, sororities, and ILGs. Please review. Jax MN ( talk) 03:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note, the new formatting idea is on the Talk page, not the mainspace page. I inserted the wrong link in my comment above. Jax MN ( talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: despite what others have said, I still think that it fails WP:NLIST. I cannot find any sources that the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The sources are either from MIT, the ILG, or some national Greek life council, so not independent. The article is also a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization in my opinion.  Bait30   ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Again Keep, with Reformatting: See Talk:List_of_Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology_fraternities,_sororities,_and_ILGs#New_format_suggestion, Sections 4, 5, and 6, for the new formatting model. A couple of points:

• These pages are highly-trafficked, and valuable to their communities. There are many similar examples of such pages so I don't see the rationale for deleting this one.
• As to WP:NLIST, 50% of MIT students join these organizations. The groups own properties and have histories stretching back to the 1800s. Clearly notable.
• For larger Greek systems, two Wikipedia List styles have emerged, which I'd call the Cornell Greek List Model and the Dartmouth Greek List Model - I far prefer the Cornell model, as it is more succinct, referenced, and not as subject to bloat, reduces fluff and suppresses inconsistent editing. The page we are discussing is rendered in the Dartmouth style (poorly, at that), and my suggested revision is in the Cornell style.
• I agree that the references on the original MIT list of Greeks were thin. However, I don't dismiss out-of-hand the MIT sources. Use of University Greek Life Office info about the Greeks is consistent with other such lists. And Baird's Manual has long been considered the defacto reference work for these societies. The new model makes use of Baird's.
• This article was discussed for deletion back in 2007, and deletion was rejected then (withdrawn). Jax MN ( talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Jax MN ( talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

• Speedy keep Jax MN makes good arguments and it seems to me there was consensus to keep it before the relisting so I feel the relist was unnecessary. -- Micky ( talk) 17:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Jax MN has voted twice in this discussion, the balance before the relist was two editors saying keep and two saying delete, and nevermind it appears you're a sock. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 16:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I did vote twice, the second time after you promoted the issue once again. (Actually, as I pointed out, it's the third time the issue had been raised, and a previous AfD was withdrawn.) EoRdE6, you have not addressed the substantive issues I've raised. I'm attempting to cure the valid concerns that prompted your request for AfD. Frankly I am surprised that this has generated so little conversation, as these Greek lists are often more popular. Page history, only going back to 2016 shows a dozen views a day. I conclude that with a higher quality page it will generate more use, more interest. Which is what I am attempting to do by revising it. I'm about to update the new draft to its mainspace. Will you withdraw this AfD request on this basis? Jax MN ( talk) 16:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Jax MN: I see no reason to not let this AfD run its course, even if it may be leaning keep. You have not addressed the core concerns raised here, a lot of page views is not in any way a reason to keep, nor does the fact it was kept in 2007 mean anything, we don't use case law on Wikipedia and a previous keep doesn't mean it can't be deleted in the future. I of course encourage you to try to improve the article, no one is stopping you there. But I fully intend to let this AfD run its course and have other, uninvolved and non-COI editors weigh in, and have absolutely no interest in arguing with you about improving it, which is why I have refrained from replying, I welcome improvements to the article, that's why we are here. My vote remains delete. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Leaning Delete - Massive amount of unsourced/primary sourced text. I would say "Wikipedia is not MIT's promotional website" but this is even more detail than I would expect there. It's possible a list could make sense somewhere, but this is not simply a list. As such WP:TNT would apply, and it's probably more sensible to just include in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Rhododendrites:. I'm about to swap out the entire page with new content that fixes the lack of references, the fluff language and style problems. I'd appreciate your review of the updated page after about 20 minutes from now and ask for a reconsideration of your leaning vote. My concern remains that this effort to delete is Quixotic. Unnecessary. But I want to ensure that those coming late to the party see that the complaint was about the former version of the page, not this new version. Jax MN ( talk) 18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I've completed the revised article. The old content has been swapped out with new, including many references, cleaned up formatting and much reduction of fluff. Jax MN ( talk) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your efforts. It may help if you highlight here what the 2-4 best sources are for the topic (sources independent of MIT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Certainly. The previous article had 12 references, mostly from unreliable local chapter websites. The revised site has over 120 references. They include the 20th ed. (1991) of Baird's Manual, first published in 1879. It's considered the defacto reference standard for Greek letter organizations. I reviewed approximately 50 of the annual MIT Technique yearbooks, each edited by a separate editorial board and Editor-in-Chief, citing individual pages for every society which existed up until 1930 -- yearbooks are not available online after that year. For a deeper look at the history of the dozen Jewish fraternities at MIT (some current, some dormant) I cited a book by Marianne Rachel Sanua, Going Greek: Jewish College Fraternities in the United States, 1895-1945, which I summarized on the Talk page. --Interesting book. I also cited a white paper produced by the University's office of FSILGs (by Administrative staff, within Student Affairs) which I noted as the "FSILG report." I only found two errors on that otherwise comprehensive and valuable document. Almost all of the groups now note their address and website, which a Google Map search would confirm for physical presence. Finally, several contemporary newspaper articles are cited, where they had detail to offer. Where I didn't have a reference for an unknown detail I left a note, or question mark, or "xx" in a missing date. This is a collaborative, iterative process, after all. Jax MN ( talk) 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

From what I can tell though, while both Baird's Manual and Going Greek mention fraternities and sororities in depth, they fail to mention the importance of the specific grouping as it concerns MIT. Both books appear to mention the history/importance of the national organizations and then merely provide a list of schools that have a chapter, so a grouping that would indicate the notability of List of Alpha Tau Omega chapters for example. Also, the only newspapers that are referenced are The Tech and Chicago Tribune. The Tech is a student newspaper, so I would argue it cannot be used to establish notability per WP:AUD. The Tribune article on the other hand does not mention the grouping of MIT frats, srats, and ILGs as a whole, so no WP:LISTN. Everything else you mentioned is not WP:INDEPENDENT.  Bait30   ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oh thank you. I'd like to explore your concerns further, so that I may offer more extensive references. Tell me,

• Are you uncertain whether these organizations exist? Or that the earliest Greek societies appeared at MIT 150 years ago? I can prove that.
• Are you unconvinced that they operate as a bloc, or shared-interest consortium, a community one might say, with shared interests, and have done so for over 130 years? I can prove that.
• Are you skeptical that a plurality, or even a majority of undergrads at MIT have participated in these groups since about 1880? (I may be off by a year or two +/-. Forgive the sloppiness.) I can prove that.
• Did you demur over the article's claim that today, about 1,000 students are active members, visiting or living at these Greek properties on a daily basis? I can prove that.
• There is a Gallup survey of Greeks, nationally, that confirms a more positive student experience due to Greek participation. Fifty schools were surveyed, each with a corresponding, positive result. I can see if they included MIT in their pool. Without it, maybe the Greek administration office has done its own survey. One might infer from the popularity of these organizations that they do have their adherents and supporters.
• Property records and comparable real estate sales ("comps") will show that the value of owned Greek properties is in excess of, say, $250M. I can trace property records back to the organizations themselves, via their alumni boards. This may take some time though, as due to COVID, some government offices are shut down and this AfD request is timed for a seven-day period. What to do? But I can prove this valuation.
• Many of the references I cited were school yearbooks. Do you have a concern that there was a conspiracy to print sometimes 150 pages within each volume, dedicated to these organizations? Some might think that the persistence of these yearbook sections would prove the Greek-Letter organizations' influence and defacto presence on campus. I can prove that.

Now, maybe I took a shortcut, and ask that you correct me if this was wrong. In many of the yearbook references I cited, I did NOT provide an immediate link to them, only to the year and page #. The link to the trove of online yearbooks is at " MIT Technique yearbook archive" (accessed 23 Jun 2020), and is noted elsewhere in the article. But I can append that link and date of access to each of my yearbook references. Sorry.

• On a related theme, my research shows that each yearbook was written, edited and is copyrighted by a separate governing board, with some staff continuing over a two-year span, but certainly no one except faculty advisors lasting on said board(s) for longer than 4 years. --Were you suspicious that a cadre of conspirators wrote these sections about perhaps fictitious groups? Each yearbook did contain a prank section, but I carefully avoided using any of that material. I could provide reference citations on these references themselves, linking to the printed page that lists the editors and board members. Alternatively, you might go to the cited yearbook, then page through to the front pages where the editors are listed, or to the end, where the rest of the board is photographed. (I may need help in providing nested references within the references. Can one even do that? But regardless, I'm game.)
• WP:reliable sources seems to suggest a spectrum, and not a rigid parameter. Even though, yes, some of these sources come from the school, they aren't ephemeral, fleeting sources like chapter websites (here today, gone tomorrow). Rather, they are from published books, Administration white papers, and professional staff research.
• Wikipedia sometimes allows a preponderance of evidence in determining validity of a source. See WP:RSCONTEXT, and especially WP:BIASED, which states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - The Greek Office, for example, is likely pro-Greek, but unlikely to offer fraudulent information. Their cited reference, in fact, alerts readers where to send corrections, and invites them. I was careful not to use "self-published" books, but did see WP:SELFSOURCE, and think my references pass the 5-point sniff test therein.
• Some famous alumni indeed list their Greek membership on their CVs and such participation is noted on their biographical Wikipedia pages. I can search for these.
• I'd estimate that at least 100,000 MIT graduates have Linked In pages, and if 40% participated in the Greek system, many will note this on those pages. Say that this is 5,000-10,000 people. My experience is that alumni Greeks often mention their participation with some pride, using this for networking or to show that they have social or emotional competency along with the likely technical competency that an MIT degree indicates. Would you require citations on the page for, say, 100 of these alumni? 500? I, or my heirs, could provide that.

I'm no slacker when it comes to research, and honestly wish to provide validation to this page, anything that a disinterested but diligent Wikipedia editor would require. With all this in mind, especially the points above about use of reliable sources from MIT administrative offices and the many yearbook editions, please let me know where I might allay yours or any concerns. With respect, Jax MN ( talk) 18:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Certainly some refbombing going on here. At a glance, I think the topic has encyclopaedic value, but I'm not sure its current form does. Whether it can be fixed I'm not sure, but I respect the efforts of the above editors for trying. I lean towards keeping with significant cutting down, rewriting of parts and better sourcing, recognising that there is active work in attempting to fix it. At a glance the article appears to be in a better form than it was when the AfD started ( Special:Permalink/962098874), but there's a lot of primary sources and refbombing going on, so the reality may be different with a closer inspection. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• I appreciate your viewpoint. Taking the perspective of a genealogical researcher or historical biographer, I thought the most useful citations for these researchers would drill down to a specific instance where one of the groups (fraternities often, but sometimes honorary societies, etc.) would provide new information, for example, a 1925 yearbook citation that explains a group was locally founded in 1917. This kind of thing is common, and with few exceptions (due to typos) these many available yearbook citations are internally consistent. Now, each group might have 40 similar citations available, but for brevity (and to your point) to avoid refbombing, I chose one or two that add new information: dates of local founding, chapter name, address, crest, first appearance, etc. Wikipedia often points the way for additional research lines, and is not intended to declare all valid references. There is a difficulty in pointing to the vast expanse of yearbook citations to show the first appearance, or validity of one of the Greek societies, in that, if I was to just say "see yearbooks" it wouldn't add much value. These volumes constitute over 50,000 pages. (150 years x average 350 pages each). Hence I listed the year and page number where one could find more detail about each specific group, but didn't add links... But if reviewers think that is necessary, I could. ...This was a compromise between differentiation and page bloat. For the many Greek society pages elsewhere this seems to be the accepted syntax.

In compared to the old (last month's) style, what this new version does is to reduce the tendency to editorial, self-serving bloat, because it doesn't offer each fraternity a paragraph on the mainspace to talk about the "virtues" of each chapter, as do pages for other (often prestige East Coast) schools. My new format of the page took those dozens of paragraphs away, replacing all of them with a bulleted list, ordered by date of founding. ~shorter.

I thank readers who see the encyclopaedic value here. Again, thank you User:ProcrastinatingReader for your measured review. Jax MN ( talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• KEEP All those blue links to the various things listed, show it is a valid list article, aiding in navigation. Dream Focus 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Among the different fraternities/sororities listed, several actually have independent and significant coverage in local news sites. Although the article has too much puffery and all sections before the actual list qualify WP:NOT, that still cannot justify a deletion. - Harsh ( talk) 22:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The article needs pairing down and simplification in format, but there is a lot of interesting information here that lists the MIT location of blue linked items (e.g. closer to the NLIST criteria of the list of notable items, but not exactly); unlike other MIT lists (e.g. the dormitories), I think this is helpful to readers. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - it's still a mess - especially the footnotes and sourcing "according to..." - but it's getting better. I shan't in good conscience !vote either way. Bearian ( talk) 19:08, 8 July 2020 (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.