Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)

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The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Mistaken nomination. SnottyWong talk 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Masonic Lodge" is not an ambiguous term. The list of specific buildings given here is, firstly, inappropriate for a disambig page, and secondly, duplicated on List of Masonic buildings. Delete per WP:SETINDEX. SnottyWong talk 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you just linked. At WP:SETINDEX you are given Signal Mountain as an example. The disambiguation has a listing of all mountains named Signal Mountain and a link to a list page. you basically defeated your own point. PeRshGo (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is an obvious difference. A disambiguation page exists to allow users to navigate to articles which all have the same or similar names. Since there are multiple entities named "Signal Mountain", a disambig page in this case is warranted. There are not, however, multiple entities named "Masonic Lodge". There are multiple entities which fall into the category of Masonic Lodge (i.e. they can be described as a Masonic lodge), but this is not the same thing. Using your logic, we would have a disambiguation page for Human which lists every BLP article in Wikipedia. SnottyWong talk 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one article on Wikipedia titled "Masonic Lodge", so a dab page is unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Station1 is an experienced dab editor who knows better. Station1 knows this complies with MOS:DABRL and every other aspect of wp:MOSDAB policy! Station1 and i have worked together cooperatively sometimes, and sometimes seem at loggerheads, but this assertion by Station1 astounds me. I don't know "Snottywong" but AGF that the nomination is well-meant, just uninformed. --doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Snottywong's logic as I described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (disambiguation) but I can't disagree with Station1's. PeRshGo (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There are 3 wikipedia-notable places named exactly Masonic Lodge listed in the dab, and 2 close variations worth mentioning (that are likely known also as simply that, and/or are likely targets of some readers' searches). 2 of those 3 are currently primary redlinks, but they are valid disambiguation page entries as they include a properly formatted supporting bluelink to an article showing the redlink in a meaningful context, conforming exactly to the MOS:DABRL guideline. The disambiguation page is needed to clarify to editors what is proper name to start the articles at, and to clarify to readers what are the options and inform them that wikipedia currently lacks, but would welcome, articles on the redlink ones. --doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (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.