Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Kansas

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Kansas[edit]

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

No sources, tagged for more than a month. In general there is not a need for a separate article about each chapter or each meeting of Freemasons. No notability asserted or established for this particular local version of the organization. I mentioned this article also at AFD for a different article where it was claimed i was making an OtherStuffExists argument. I wasn't, there, but this "other stuff" should be deleted, anyhow. doncram (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep convenient how one can click on the "news" link above and find 61 references immmediately on Google News that range from 1880 to 2010. Long-established organization, widespread coverage (Atlanta Constitution, 1922; West Coast Times, 1891; Marlborough Express (New Zealand) 1891; and other local and regional sources. Article can be re-written or information added during an editing process, but the subject itself is clearly keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Week Keep - While Freemasonry as a whole is notable, and the concept of a Masonic Grand Lodge is a notable sub-topic, there is no "inherent notability" for individual Grand Lodges (we have deleted other articles on individual Grand Lodges when they do not pass WP:ORG) If you look at List of Masonic Grand Lodges, you will see that there are thousands of Grand Lodges around the world (several hundred in the US alone). Some of these are notable, but others are not. The Freemasonry Project strongly supports the idea that if we can not establish notability as per WP:ORG for an individual Grand Lodge, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That said, it appears that there are reliable sources available to support an article on this specific Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sheer size and history of state level grand lodges make them notable. Sources are difficult to find because they are often in these old things we used to call books but with a little work they can be easily found. PeRshGo (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, to list grand lodges as not inherently notable supports the falsehood that Freemasonry is one international organization when it most certainly isn’t. It is a group of individual grand lodges with mutual recognition. Each grand lodge is an entirely autonomous organization. So when we are talking about the Grand Lodge of Kansas keep in mind we are talking about an organization that it itself has had thousands upon thousands of members. PeRshGo (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I raised the issue of Grand Lodges not being inherently notable precisely because each grand lodge is an entirely autonomous organization, and so the fact that one GL may be notable does not mean that another GL will be notable. Each must be judged on its own merits. In this case, there seem to be independent sources to support notability. This may not be the case when it comes to some other Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Grand Lodge that is "regular" according to the UGLE would have to be heroically small to not be notable enough for an article. In fact I'd say it's close to inherently notable. Kansas certainly is not tiny and has a large number of lodges. JASpencer (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think it would be a very large and well established organisation. scope_creep (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:05, 13 November 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.