Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General list of masonic Grand Lodges (2nd 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 keep. Wizardman 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General list of masonic Grand Lodges[edit]

Having recently AfDed a number of Grand Lodges that simply had no verifiable sources, and considering that no one has touched the article to make any of the modifications discussed as part of the last AfD, I think this article should be deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE. As a "general list", there are no defining parameters - that means there could be hundreds of entries just for the United States, and no way to verify at least half of them aside from their own pages (if even that - the GLs I nominated had dead or non-informative webpages), meaning there would be a lot of redlinks that would simply be unverifiable, which causes another policy issue with WP:V. As far as "not being a guidebook" goes, Pantagraph publishes a book every year for every UGLE-related jurisdiction which has the bulk of this material, and has membership, webpage, etc., just like this list. People say it can be broken down, but if it needs to be broken down, it means there was no need for the original list, and a list of 400 entries really isn't going to be readable or useful, so there's no need for this. As it stands, this list remains unmaintainable, and we would be better s3erved with using nav templates for useful material, like the US "mainstream" GLs, which can easily be expanded to include Prince Hall (because it's also US-based), and we could do "European GLs", "CLIPSAS GLs" etc., as long as there's enough material to do articles on them in conformity with WP:N.MSJapan (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. In addition, the vast majority of the Grand Lodges listed in the article (including most of the so called "mainstream" Grand Lodges) do not meet the criteria for notability given at WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. As is repeatedly stated at WP:ORG, the notability of an organization must be established by reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject. In the case of the vast majority of Masonic Grand Lodges, the only sources that exist are self-published. There are lots of sources that discuss Freemasonry as a whole, but hardly any that discuss individual Grand Lodges. This means that the article is essentially a list of non-notable entities. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning would be sound if we were talking about a Article on an individual Lodge. But we ar not. We are talking about a List of Lodges. That list is allowed to have redlinks. The only thing that must be adhered to is WP:V, and most of them do satisfy that. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Saying that "a list of 400 entries really isn't going to be readable or useful" isn't really true, or any reason to delete. There are even longer lists that have passed the AFD test under extreamly similar circumstances. Also, why is there a preference about having a UGLE list, instead of a "general list"? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the sake of policy adherence, mostly. UGLE-recognized lodges tend to have websites that work and are informative, secondary sources (like the List of Lodges book that gives foundation date and membership), and publicly available proceedings (though technically primary sources). From the cleanup I just did, most of the "liberals" don't - websites were dead, and the extent of the info was an entry on the CLIPSAS list, which only asserts existence, not notability. As a matter of fact, two of the GLs claimed as CLIPSAS members were in fact UGLE-recognized, and I had to really hunt to figure that out. As a rule, UGLE groups are a lot more stable - other branches tend to have schisms very frequently (RGLE split from UGLE, and within two years of its start split again, and seems to have disappeared (a WP:V issue)). This serves to make small groups even smaller, causing issues with WP:N, V, RS, and ORG. Google will show that most countries have one UGLE-recognized GL (or a few District GLs from other countries) and multiple GLs in other obediences), so there's a definite completeness and maintenance issue. However, as Blueboar mentioned, there are instances where UGLE GLs don't assert notability, either - Grand Lodge of West Virginia is a good one. Started in 1865, and the only info is a lawsuit in 2007/8; I can't find any history books locally, so I'd be inclined to not have an article on that GL either. Also, there is a whole page of bogus US Prince Hall GLs. By the scope of the list as it stands, these are permissible entries, when common sense and WP policy says they aren't, because there's no such thing as intrinsic notability by title, which is what the list implies. MSJapan (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In reply to Exit2Dos: I don't think anyone is indicating a preference about having a UGLE list, instead of a "general list". I think the issue is whether to have a list at all. Most "Grand Lodges" (whether UGLE affiliated, CLIPSAS affiliated, or completely independant with no affiliation at all) simply are not notable according to our notability criteria. So why do we have a list of non-notable entities? Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Exit2DOS2000. Also, I find it to be very interesting and a good reference tool. Dwain (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how the masonic groups arrange their hierarchy is their own concern, and if they appear to be notable, they will have articles here , regardeless of the degree of acceptance among other masons. In a list there is a looser standard--hey do not have to be individually notable, jut verifiable a masonic organiztions. to be notable, just verfiable. DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wasn't going to wade in here as I didn't really have anything original to say, but I thought I would look at MSJ's reasoning. Firstly WP:NOTGUIDE can not apply here at all. None of the categories could reasonably apply to this article. I'm not sure why such a weak argument was put forward. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a bit stronger. I went through the various examples and the only one that could conceivably apply is the third "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business" or "yellow pages". This is not met as the only contact details are the websites (there are no phone numbers or addresses) and these are incidental to the list. So I think under the terms of the nomination the deletion fails. JASpencer (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zef (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (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.