Kappa Kappa Psi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 27, 2012.
Kappa Kappa Psi is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marching band, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marching bands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marching bandWikipedia:WikiProject Marching bandTemplate:WikiProject Marching bandMarching band articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
Article requests : Review the references. Combine those that can use the same link, fix those that are archived to once again point to an active website, and remove those that do not add value. All paragraphs except the lede should have one or more references clearly denoted to apply to them.
Citing sources : Most fraternity articles would benefit from additional citations, especially new or updated references. These could be from Baird's manual (last edition published in 1991), or a notable publication or book, a university yearbook, an official university portal listing or where the school comments on the student organization.
Infobox : The infobox may be incomplete. The template used for this entry, where you can see all available fields (--these things: "| = text") is the fraternity-specific infobox. This, and other useful items are linked on the Fraternities and Sororities Project page.
Maintain : Set a calendar reminder to update the chapter count, the chapter list, and otherwise check the article for necessary updates, annually.
Update : If calling out specific chapters in the body text, italicize the name of the chapter. Wikipedia practice within the F&S Project is that the word "chapter" is not capitalized, while the name of the chapter is.
Wikify : Add relevant, public symbolism to the infobox. Annually, confirm the physical address (including the ZIP code field) and website. Annually, confirm the number of chapters and number of lifetime members. Any chapter list should be placed into a table format, like this: Omega Tau Sigma or Sigma Delta Rho (to reference two unrelated examples), or as a separate standalone page when the list is lengthy (subjective, perhaps 30 chapters or more). A chapter list should include dates of chartering. Indicate if a chapter is active by bolding its name, or if inactive by using italics. A table will allow room where chapter references may point to portal pages, and allow comments on where a chapter came from, interesting facts or its outcome. A table may also be used to showcase notable members, but to avoid vanity listings be sure to add a list of rules for inclusion, as discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_6#Notable_members_2. As an example, Phi Kappa Theta does a nice job with their notable members list.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I created a category for Wikipedians who are members/alumni of Kappa Kappa Psi. To join, just add [[Category:Wikipedians in Kappa Kappa Psi]] to your User Page. Cmadler01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Bumbu, I accept that for GA of FA status the article should be reviewed. My own sense is that this is a good article, well sourced, and a solid improvement over the baseline of Greek Letter society articles. I have no affiliation and offer this as someone who works to improve these articles. You note a previous discussion over citations. I just reviewed each of the citations. Considering 80 references, here is what I found:
30 items - Self-referenced to the national website (allowable, as long as this fills in information otherwise in-part sourced independently)
4 items - to books and unimpeachable third party publications, such as Baird's Manual. Several used multiple times because of the quality of the reference.
2 items - to academic or discipline-centric journals
12 items - to independent news sources, some national, some reliable local news, some daily or weekly school newspapers
1 item - to an independent, printed magazine
4 items - citing back to local chapter websites hosted by colleges
9 items - citing the society's published magazine, stretching back ~100 years (the Podium or the Baton) (Self -referenced, but in context, reliable and more permanent than 'just' a website)
11 items - citing an article published by a college or university, but not a school newspaper
6 items - citing a personal website or another Greek organization's website
1 item - citing a governmental site.
My analysis is this: This page needs upkeep. Some of these references are unnecessary, and many are archived. It appears that zealous editing by detractors has focused on this particular group, while legions of other Wikipedia articles are ignored for any degree of citation policing. Smells like bad faith to me (not accusing you, Bumbu). Would that many of the Greek Letter organization articles have had this much effort put into them for historic detail and decent writing, we'd have a far better resource. I further surmise that the zealous sniping of this page has likely browned off many new editors, seeking to add useful content about a group they care about in good faith and who are learning to follow the rules about neutral content. My own concern is to support the growth of good new editors, and I am regularly an Inclusionist here, and not a Deletionist**. I find that the citations easily support a removal of the tag asking for more citations. If anything, many citations can be trimmed, or combined. I do not believe that any prior detractors have spent the time I have in reviewing these citations, at least in their current form. On this basis I am taking two actions: removing the unnecessary tag asking for MORE CITES, and adding a summary in the To Do tag on the Talk page, asking for someone who is familiar with this group to clean up, combine or otherwise improve the many citations here. I will leave the Class rating as is, as Bumbu is correct that an independent review process should occur (there is a group that does this). And I will respectfully sign off with kudos to the writers of this article who appear to have worked hard to learn the process and offer fine content in good faith. Jax MN (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
** As to "Inclusionism" versus "Deletionism", this is an old debate on WP. See Jason Scott Sadofsky's Notacon presentation on the "wasted effort" subject.[1] I support Inclusionism, over Deletionism, which, if the Deletionist win would make Wikipedia less useful. I stand with others in noting that Deletionism is a hold-over philosophy, constrained by print-era thinking. "Deletionism" harms Wikipedia, by contributing to WP community disintegration, and decreasing the motivation of new authors and editors. Further, I don't see the point of aggressive deletion or sniping WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO FIX ANYTHING OR OFFER SUGGESTIONS when, a) the society exists, b) it has good references, c) the article is readable and well-formed, d) a motivated group of editors is actively involved in improving stubs and articles as they improve, and e) this society is uncontroversial (compared to the flurry of self-promotional or silly articles created each day. See Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. (also Jax MN (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC))Reply
