Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry (second nomination)

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 no consensus to delete. Could still be redirected but consensus is unclear, should probably be discussed on the applicable talk pages (doesn't require AFD to redirect). W.marsh 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obligations in Freemasonry

No substantial edits in over a month to an article that is now again a duplicate of its original section. The now-banned user who created this article was more interested in "exposing Msonic secrets" (with one text that is in the public domain than any sort of discussion on Obligations (which was already covered), thus WP:POINT. The main issue for no consensus in the original AfD was that the article was well-referenced. Those sources were later deemed unreliable by consensus (one place at one time is not enogh for a generalization), and the OTO section was taken out also as unreliable. The article is now a carbon copy of the material in the main Freemasonry article, and should therefore be deleted to avoid any future POV forks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MSJapan (talk • contribs)

NOTE BENE: There never was an OTO section in this article as alleged by MSJapan. ~~Other facts presented may be obscured by similar memory lapses.~~ Jefferson Anderson 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was thinking of Jahbulon, apparently. Thanks for the ad hominem though. MSJapan 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for reminding me to look at the Jahbulon article. I see some changes have been made that I don't agree with. Jefferson Anderson 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freemasonry#Obligations, as nom said, its more or less a direct copy of that section.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it is technically possible to redirect to a subheading. Am I wrong about this? Jefferson Anderson 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think its a compartivly recent addition to the software, but yeah, its entirely possible.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ability to redirect to headings is new and shiny. -- saberwyn 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing it at various places, and it works well. DGG 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and either restore quotes from Duncan's removed by Freemasonic editors or use the synopsis version created by User:ALR. I've reverted to the latter since the Freemasonic editors object to Duncan's rather strenuously. Thus the article is no longer a duplicate of the section in the main Freemasonry article. Jefferson Anderson 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - or perhaps Merge. I appreciate the fact that Jefferson Anderson is willing to drop the references and quotations to Duncan's Masonic Monitor (a very controversial and unreliable source, and the main issue during the previous AfD) and adopt compromise language. This moves me from a strong delete (in the previous AfD) to simply a redirect recommendation. I still feel that this material works better as part of the main Freemasonry article, where it is presented in context so the non-masonic reader can better understand it. The addition of the list of things Masons agree to in a typical obligation does not change this feeling. If that material is considered vital, it can be merged into Freemasonry Blueboar 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adopting the reasonable arguments of Jefferson Anderson. Frankly, I make an analogy to a religion--there can be valid different views of the same text, and we shouldn't decide which is right. DGG 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not an interpretative issue. If we want to use the same analogy (though I think it's flawed here, because Freemasonry isn't a religion), it's like using the NIV Bible and saying that it is entirely the same as the KJV, and moreover that everyone uses it. It's a gross generalization; the text which is "right" is governed solely by the Grand Lodge in the jurisdiction - no one else's matters within the jurisdiction, nor is it correct outside the jurisdiction. That has always been the objection to the text, not some silly BS about exposing secrets, because the obligation isn't secret. MSJapan 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to section in main article, substantive content is identical.ALR 19:10, 11 April 2007 (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.