Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Areopagus Lodge


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Areopagus Lodge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No apparent notability, most local masonic lodges are not notable kcylsnavS 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Week Delete : It is true that most local level Masonic lodges are not considered notable (per WP:ORG). However, there are exceptions.  Areopagus was apparently the first Masonic lodge created in Brazil, so there is definitely a potential for considering it notable.  The question is whether there are sources that can be used to substantiate that potential... sources that discuss this particular chapter of the Freemasons in some depth.  Google Books hits on two sources... but both only mention it in passing (while talking about something else).  That is not really enough to satisfy WP:ORG.  That said, since this is a Brazilian lodge, there might be sources in Portuguese that are not coming up on Google books (we need someone to check on that).  Without such sources, the article is (unfortunately) a valid deletion candidate. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. "No apparent notability" is contradicted by its claim that it's the oldest lodge in Brazil.  Mind boggling that this can be considered.  JASpencer (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's start with the basics... are there any sources to support the claim that Areopagus Lodge actually was the first Masonic lodge in Brazil? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are in Portuguese, but there are sources that support the claim. More importantly (and more clear cut) there are also sources to support the fact that it was involved in an attempted coup to secede from the Portuguese empire and despite being disbanded that its members would continue to be a thorn in the Imperial side. JASpencer (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please add these sources to the article. (I do assume good faith... but I would like to find a neutral party who reads Portuguese to verify what you say about the sources). Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nominator's Rationale: An organization is not notabale just because it lays claim to some fact, true or not, that would support notability. Notability must be (1) supported by unrelated third party sources independent of the organization that are (2) cited in the article. RiverStyx23 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to vote twice? You nominated the article under one name and put in a "Delete" vote under another. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still me. The account was renamed. RiverStyx23 19:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're not supposed to vote once you've nominated. That's seen as double voting.  although in this case almost certainly innocent, it looks particularly dodgy if you've changed your name.  Besides there are actually sources in both Portuguese and English that are independent of the body cited in the article after you put in that comment. JASpencer (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I didn't know that. But just so everyone's clear, "double voting" is a misnomer, as is the implication of an infraction or violation of some kind that is implied by assuming my innocense (which I nevertheless appreciate). The policy, of which I am now more fully aware, says, "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations."
 * Do you want me to cross out that vote for you?
 * They are not "votes," they are indications of consensus. RiverStyx23 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Further Comment: Agree with Blueboar, below. Having been seriously and rather nastily (IMO) slapped around by the presumed owner of an article - to which I was adding widely- and well-known, easily verifiable true information - for not supporting my additions with notable, verifiable third party sources, I see the usefulness of requiring these up front. It avoids a lot of wasted time discussing basic en.Wiki policies (noting however that the policy is verifiability of a source not notability). RiverStyx23 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, appears notable, and I'm sure more Portuguese-language sources will be found to substantiate this.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - could we not assume the existence of sources, please (this is a pet peeve of mine). If sources actually do exist, that is one thing (we can then examine the sources and see if they actually support the claims made in the article)... but we should not keep articles based on an assumption that they do (or should) exist. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While it's perfectly OK to say "If this is so notable it should have sources by now" it is also perfectly fine to say that "this article doesn't seem to have sources because of x" and Sarek quite reasonably put forward the idea that the sources were in Portuguese. There is already a presumption against poorly sourced articles and this works quite well.  Taking it from a presumption to an inflexible law would mean that we would be deleting a lot of useful or interesting topics simply out of cultural bias. JASpencer (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources not in English must nevertheless be verifiable. See Verifiability. RiverStyx23 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is easy enough to settle... I have asked for a Portuguese reader to examine the source (see: WP:RSN) Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I have evaluated the Portuguese source, and although published by Masons it seems reliable. There doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt its veracity or neutrality. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion to week Keep, based on examination of the source at RSN. As noted there, not all the sources are reliable, but the one making the claim that the lodge is the oldest in Brazil is.  The article needs work, and could definitely use better sourcing... but there is now (barely) enough for me to flip over to the Keep side of the fence. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome, to the Dark Side. :)  μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a good article with a lot of great sources (these seem very reliable). The argument of the article is interesting and useful for wikipedia. Samuel petan (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.