Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grande Loja Regular de Portugal

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 delete. PTorg's comment is too confusing for me to follow. Sandstein 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Loja Regular de Portugal[edit]

Notability can not be established as per WP:ORG. I can find no reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject. This is an article about one of several Masonic bodies that exist in Portugal (Portugese Freemasonry seems prone to schism). The article is primarily sourced to self-published websites (There is citation to one scholarly source, but this source does not discuss the subject Org. in any great detail. It is used in the article primarily to discuss rival groups, and furthermore indicates that the subject Org has an estimated total membership of around 100 people. in other words, it backs the idea that this org is not notable.) Please note that an article on a larger, rival body was recently deleted for the same reasons as this nom. (see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grande Loja Legal de Portugal/GLRP). Also note that there has been some discussion of merging this article into a general article on Freemasonry in Portugal (which I would agree is a more notable topic). After attempting such a merger, I am having the same difficulties with finding reliable secondary sources that we have with this article and the one already deleted, and will probably end up nominating it for deletion as well. It seems that, unlike in other countries, Freemasonry was not all that important to Portugese history, and Portugese Freemasonry was not that important in the development of the fraternity. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I attempted to work with this as well, and there's simply nothing there. It's not even a case of bias, either (as that usually becomes an argument in Grand Lodge deletion debates); there's just no way to consider an individual organization notable when it has 100 members (or even a thousand) out of a population of ten million plus, has no real visibility in society, and seems to have suffered schism after schism after schism to the point where nobody knows exactly which group is which. MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability the great excuse to control articles and interests, sometimes dictated by one or two organized users ... no comment for this|. For the records it was interesting to see that the recognition by UGLE does not stablish notability to Grand Lodges as argument to delete the article (in stub) Grande Loja Legal de Portugal/GLRP CONGRATULATIONs !!!!. Also the "number and members" published for lodges in Portugal came from a member Initiated in Lodge Star of the Morning nº 7 and presently, Master Mason in Lodge Anderson 16th (Rite York) of the same Obedience GLRP (Legal). Citing José Manuel Anes, ibidem, pp. 34-5. (José M. Anes was Grand Master of the (Legal)). Here is the link to Jose M. Anes and his numbersAccording some information and a magazine published this week in portugal, GLRP dont reveal his members, how many or what lodges has. I don't think this is not reliable source why insist in refering that (Blueboar and MSJapan)?. There is a obscure interest in clear this information but history will reveal the serious error. I think that Grand Lodges of these users should be informed about their "work". Maybe i can help this way. Too bad for real Freemason "bros"!!! I will keep on touch. Sincerely PTorg (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PTorg (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG: no reliable third party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure if a more thorough discussion is possible. Unless someone can come up with reliable third party sources that discuss this org., what more is there to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but merge relevant content to Freemasonry in Portugal, given the schismatic nature of Portuguese lodges and the lack of relevant third party coverage in modern times. --Pc13 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relevant content already merged. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2009 (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.