Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (Lahore)

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 keep. JForget 00:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Temple (Lahore)[edit]

Masonic Temple (Lahore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed almost immediately with no changes made to article content to address issues. Notability still not established for building. The article is supposed to be about the building, but talks almost exclusively about the state of Freemasonry in Pakistan since 1972, and about one Lodge (and not necessarily the only Lodge) that met in the building. A Lodge is not the building it meets in, and the building does not inherit notability from the organization. MSJapan (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the user who rm'ed the prod also found a substantial amount of copyvio which he noted on the talk page and did not remove. After said removal by me, there is no longer any relevant information about the building except the photo and infobox. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The AFD is a kneejerk action by MSJapan, who in recent days prodded 4 articles on Masonic buildings and disambiguation pages. All 4 prods were removed; 4th is now at AFD here by MSJapan's nomination, heading towards a very solid Keep. The issues with this article, too, would be naturally addressed in the normal course of editing. The availability of Pakistan sources may be less immediately available or familiar to U.S. editors currently working on masonic buildings topics (see all the activity at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, so fixing this article could take some more time, but there are a number of editors interested in broadening the focus of that list-article. MSJapan and another editor or two have taken a kneejerk viewpoint against inclusion of articles, as a matter of philosopy or POV or strategy in some kind of game. About this specific topic, there is substantial notability apparent, though there are issues in sourcing and in tone. I noted an apparent copyvio possibility, which can be addressed by editing; it does not mean the article topic is not notable. The AFD should just be rejected, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve the article, whether as a stub or not, is in fact notable. That is the only major concern for an AfD, sources/references and quality are not legit reasons to delete. We are a work in progress.Camelbinky (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs more references for the content that's there, but it certainly looks like a historical and notable building, based on the sources already in place. Heck, it must be notable simply because the building is mentioned in the very first page of one of the very best stories ever written, Kipling's Kim.[1] It's also where Kipling (a noted orator, among other things) gave his first speech,[2] and it's mentioned in this biography of Kipling.[3] First Light (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has serious problems, but the sources plus Kipling's membership in this lodge make the topic notable. --Orlady (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as it stands is very confused and it's not clear whether it's talking about the building, or the Lodge that met in Lahore. That's not helped by structural issues with the opening paragraph rambling on about Freemasonry being banned in Pakistan, quite common in post colonial Islamic states, rather than the building or the Lodge. I am wary of trying to tidy it up as I'd anticipate some resistance to the required clean up. My gut feel is that the Lodge probably isn't particularly notable, but the building might be, based on assertions from the buildings projects around proxies for the existence of evidence. I would clean it up on that basis. ALR (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No question that the current article is confused! It appears to me that the article needs to be "about" both the Lodge and the notable building(s) it has occupied. The Lodge is notable due to its having been documented by Rudyard Kipling, and the building is notable as a local landmark. The two topics (the Lodge and the building) are sufficiently intertwined -- and the sourced content sufficiently sparse -- that a single article makes sense. When all is said and done, it is likely that the article will have a different title, but that's not a subject for AfD. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced by either of those, although largely that's given the paucity of sources.
It's not clear whether the building itself is notable, and why, or whether there is an assumption of inherited notability as part of a district/ street. From a GNG perspective the doesn't appear to have substantial/ non-trivial treatment in multiple independent sources. It's single sourced at the moment, although there may be more out there. Reducing the notability bar to that used by the buildings projects may be acceptable, but there is no allusion in the article at the moment to the building even reaching that.
As to the Lodge itself being notable because Kipling was a member, then again I'm not convinced that meets the GNG. Notability isn't inherited from Kipling himself, and there appears to be only a single reference to the Lodge that is attributed to him. It may be that his poem The Mother Lodge is an allusion to his own Mother Lodge, but the couple of searches I've just run only speculate on that themselves so it's not known whether it is or not. There is an article on the Peitre Stones] website about Kipling, but again the treatment is very light and refers back to his own brief writing on the lodge. As I recall a couple of editors from elsewhere in Wikipedia objected to the use of Peitre Stones as a source in the past as it's a privately published site.
The sourcing is extremely weak and a critical culling of content woul dprobably leave little more than a pair of speculative paragraphs. But it's clear enough that the majority of votes are likely to be to keep the article anyway.
The other two sources only talk about Freemasonry in general in a Pakistan context.
ALR (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does need cleanup and more/better referencing, both of which appear to be ongoing. Both the building and the lodge satisfy WP:GNP with the current references but I do agree that it is important to draw the proper distinction between lodges as masonic organizations and temples/halls as meeting places. Where, as here, the topics are historically intertwined, a single article discussing both is appropriate, in my opinion. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify why GNP permits an inherited notability given that Kipling already has a fairly extensive article that mentions his Freemasonry, in particular his dispensation for early initiation?
TIA
ALR (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kipling's writing about the lodge in autobiography, letter and fiction is not inherited notability but rather written evidence of significant coverage going to meet WP:GNG. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically cite the GNP essay, and I just don't see it. I'm still unconvinced, the secretary of a Lodge isn't independent of the topic. The secretary of a Lodge is pretty much the driving force behind it on an ongoing basis. I remain concerned about the conflation of the Lodge and the building, particularly where there is such a reliance on a single source.
From the perspective of the building we've got a handful of trivial sources, so we're reliant on Kipling, and could reasonably use the material we have in the article about him.
ALR (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering that that there are probably many more sources available in Urdu, and in a country that doesn't appear to fawn over historical buildings the way some nations do, the article has become surprisingly well(enough)-referenced. Congratulations to everyone who has helped turn this into a very interesting and keepable encyclopedia article. First Light (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I get the impression that the article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. In its current state, the article has enough significant references to demonstrate the lodge's notability. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep I too am concerned that this article relies too heavily on inherited notability. For one thing, the whole Kipling section needs to go... it is unlikely that Kipling ever set foot in the building (Kipling was initiated into Freemasonry in 1885... and the building was not built until 1914... and Kipling was living in England by then). I am removing this section. (Given some poor faith between myself and the editors who wrote this article, I expect to be reverted.) So the question is... can the article stand without the section on Kipling? I think it does... just. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is only going to be about the building, then it makes sense to remove the Kipling section. If—as at least one editor has suggested above—the history of the Lodge and the building are so intertwined as to merit one combined article, then the Kipling history should remain as is. Since the article looks like it's going to be kept, that discussion should probably be held on the article's talk page. First Light (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it has been clearly defined already both here and especially on the talk page that the article is about both, not just one. It makes it simpler anyways to make it both, since the sources can be convoluted in that regard. SilverserenC 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind mentioning the Lodge of Hope and Perseverance as being the Masonic owners of the building... but focusing on Kipling is misleading.Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK... Looking at the article again, it is actually trying to conflate three things... two buildings located at the same site (one built in the 1850s, and another built in 1914 to replace it), and a Masonic Lodge. The Notability of the first, 1850s building is (weakly) supported by Kipling mentioning it in his poems, essays, and fiction. The notability of the second, 1914 building is supported modern sources (although I think we should look for better ones). In a few cases it is not clear which building is being referred to in the sources. The lodge itself is not notable except by inheritance to either Kipling (For this reason, I don't think we should consider the Lodge to be part of the topic... However, it is certainly appropriate to mention it in the article). Given this... I think the topic should be the two buildings. I think there is just enough to support saying that both buildings are notable. The article needs to make it clearer which building is being discussed at any given point (even with recent edits that is confused)... but that is an editing issue, not a notability issue. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to summarize for this AFD, there is no new implication for the AFD from those tangential statements. All editors besides the nominator have voted Keep or not disagreed with Keep. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram... as a participant in this AfD you are free to say that you don't think a tangent has any implication on an AfD, but the determination as to whether it does or does not have an implication is up to the closing admin. AdD discussions often go off into tangents... sometimes they are irrelevant, and sometimes they greatly influence the outcome. This is because AfD closure is not based on the number of !votes, but on the quality of the arguments that the participating editors make. Please, just be patient and let the process work.

Move to close this discussion. Time to close this. The only discussion is off on tangents and is just costing the time of a bunch of editors. I would close this as obvious, but i am too involved. Someone pull the trigger please. --doncram (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how AfDs work Doncram... be patient. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, I am going to have to change my opinion, given how edits are going at the page. As I mentioned above, the article is really about two distinct buildings located on the same site. I have twice attempted to clarify this in the article, only to to have my clarifications removed. As it currently stands, the article deliberately attempts to conflate the two buildings. This sort of deliberate misrepresentation of the facts should not be tolerated. As currently written, the article is seriously flawed and should be deleted. I would be very happy to revert to my previous "week keep" opinion if the misrepresentation is removed. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an invalid vote. Your displeasure at being reverted in the subject article, about whether or not the lede should explicitly cover 2 rather than 1 building, does not bear on whether or not the article should be kept. Your opinions at the article have been given consideration at the article. Your attempt to hold others hostage for your vote, i.e. your misrepresenting your own views and your gaming, is noted. The closing admin will dismiss or ignore your opinion, I am sure. Thanks for commenting, i guess. --doncram (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article as it stands misrepresents facts, and should either be fixed or deleted. Since I see no evidence of a willingness to fix (and see, instead, a deliberate intent to continue the misrepresentation)... I am changing my vote to Delete. As for whether my change is "valid" or makes any difference... that is up to the closing admin do decide. I merely state why I am changing my vote. I am sorry that this upsets you. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not upset, am just bored by this. Thanks again, i guess. --doncram (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lodge and the building(s) that they meet in form a natural topic and, even if we split them, deletion would not be appropriate fr any component while we can redirect to the other(s). Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 3 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Masonic_Temple_(Lahore)&oldid=1069472470"