Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rose of Minden Lodge No.918

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose of Minden Lodge No.918[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Rose of Minden Lodge No.918 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any independent sources about this lodge[1][2]. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources as noted in reason for page deletion and ask that the page now be granted RoyCrockford (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, *Merge would restrict the potential of similar articles being created, where each have their own distinct heritage and in turn would end in making Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany long winded RoyCrockford (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, article forks shouldn't be created in anticipation that writing about a subtopic of the main article will make it long winded. They are suppose to be created after the fact, when it's actually the case. In this particular instance, you never know what lodge or how many of them might have enough references and content for a judgement like that and fork to be warranted. Especially since the first one you created has already brought up questions about notability. There's a pretty good chance articles about the other lodges will. It's better not to waste your time or ours creating them at this point, just because you want to do the process backwards from your own conclusions that creating a bunch of forks now is the only/best/workable way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my previous attempts were written in the wrong perspective and have no qualms against the them being consequently deleted; As you have already perceived, I am no expert at this. I also agree that time wasting achieves nothing but frustration and is ultimately what I am trying to avoid. I have been asked to create a page on behalf of the named lodge along with a future intent of creating more pages for the other lodges over time. If a "spin off" is not acceptable and a "merge" doesn't provide the requested outcome can you advise how I can move this forward? RoyCrockford (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do would be to disclose the relationship with the lodges on your talk page. So your account doesn't possibly get banned for having an undisclosed COI. Outside of that, it's hard to imagine the individual lodges getting their own articles. Whatever you were asked to do. The best route IMO would be to just write about them in the main article in the most in-depth well sourced way you can. Then after a while suggest forks for them on that article. I know it's not as simple as just creating the forks on your own, based on your standards, but it avoids the inevitable issues. You have to be able to justify the forks through good sources and large amount of content. Which I don't think you can do at this point. Having the information, even if in the main article, is better then not at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I understand your point of view and will look into the best way incorporating it into the main page, as you say it is better to have something than nothing at all. As a side note disclosing my relationship was my first action, I have a great respect for the work that goes into Wiki and have no intent ruining it for myself or others. Thanks again RoyCrockford (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have added more references and, I'm not sure if this helps to Keep but, the page is a "Stub" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry & Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history projects. I can and do live in hope! RoyCrockford (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read our reliable sources guideline. It seems as if none of the sources you use are at the same time independent (i.e. not from someone or some organisation closely linked to the lodge and the freemason organisation) , reliable (i.e. not some random website, but a reputable publisher like newspapers, well-established publishers, ...), and indepth (i.e. not just mentioning the Minden lodge in passing, but writing at length about the lodge). A general rule of thumb is that you need at least two such reliable, independent sources with significant coverage to avoid deletion (or merging). Can you indicate which of the sources in the article in your view qualify, or else add such sources if they exist? Fram (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Mysticum (http://www.mysticum.cc/?Deutschland___The_Rose_of_Minden_No._918) link is the only external reference I can locate which talks about the origins of the lodge and connections to the military. This German site records the regalia & insignia of secret & private societies all over the world and is, as far as I can determine, independent. Other sources I have linked show connections between the military and masonry in general, whilst the remaining links list this lodge as existing or a member of GLBFG & VGLvD; Except the Neue Westfälische Zeitung link which shows evidence of the lodge activity in its local area. I feel I'm at a bit of an impasse as, unfortunately, I am struggling to find anymore true independent sources of information or third-party references which could or can be pointed to. There are histories/ records (none digital) which have been written, but these are all from those who are either within the lodges own ranks or at one time hailed from them. . RoyCrockford (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed your second "keep" since we are supposed to vote only once (more comments are of course allowed, and changing a previous vote as well). The one independent source is mysticum.cc[3], which doesn't look to meet our definition of a reliable source, it is a random website written by a certain Johannes Altmann who has received no attention at all[4], never mind recognition as an expert. Even ignoring his name, the website itself has not received any attention either[5]. Basically, this is an obscure personal hobby website with no indication of reliability, fact checking, ... and thus not an acceptable source in general or for establishing notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I didn't realise it was viewed as a second vote. More info has been added in connection with the notability of the lodge building and an external source for that information. It has also been tweaked to give a better appearance, more inline with Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry. I have also noticed that his page (even though it is a stub) holds more facts than that of some other pages on Wiki (for example Lodge, Illinois or The Lodge (Indianapolis, Indiana)). There are enough sources listed to show that the lodge exists, its connection to the military in Europe, its connections to freemasonry, its connections to the city of Herford and Germany history during the second world war. It may not be as notable as a personality or famous organisation, but it is a part of a famous organisation and helps to build a better picture of the make up and history of that organisation. Its input adding meat to how freemasonry has developed in its different locations and strains over time and how external influences have affected its growth. I really believe this page adds value to this encyclopedia and does not dilute the quality by any means. Kind regards and still living in hope RoyCrockford (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After restructuring, rewriting and with extra sources added I believe this page warrants Keeping(only highlighting my initial vote here). As mentioned above, it provides the Lodge's connection to the military in Europe during & after the 2nd world war, it shows how it is an integral part within the world of freemasonry and helps build on providing a better picture of that organisation. Even if it is classed as a "stub" it is still a benefit to this encyclopedia. On a final point, there has been no other votes of "Delete" since the initial NFD has been posted and since the "Merge" vote was posted the page has been rewritten and restructured providing more meat to the page. Kind regards and still living in hope RoyCrockford (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you still don't have any reliable, independent sources giving more than a passing mention of the lodge at most. All sources with actual information are either from the masons, or from mysticum which is not a reliable source (as defined at enwiki) at all. The number of commentators at this AfD is disappointing, but not a reason to keep this when the only one arguing to actually keep it is the article creator. Fram (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I still stick by my merge vote. Even after the "improvements." It still is notable enough a subject IMO to be another article, but even with the added sources it's not enough for a separate article. Like Fram says, everything is just trivial and from none reliable sources. There's lots of books out there talking about the Masons and things connected to them. So, if this particular lodge was notability there would be something about it from none primary reliable sources. To the person that created the article, it might be worth just splitting the difference and adding the content that you can to Wikidata. They have a lower notability bar and this is exactly the type of information that it is good for. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Rose_of_Minden_Lodge_No.918&oldid=963140678"