Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Rite


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Consolidated Rite

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a content fork for a term used as a title for a "path of progression." This article is simply an amalgamation of material covered much more extensively in the individual articles on the Rites mentioned. MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep - article is part of a series. If the content needs to be fixed it should be rather than be deleted.  I am not an expert in freemasonry, but it looks like the content could be rearranged for readers interested in a more condensed version of these rites. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply - : I would add, then, that this progression outline is specialized; it is only possible in Masonic groups that are under English jurisdiction. It does not hold for other systems in other countries, because the degrees in this outline do not exist in those jurisdictions or the conferral method is different.  For example, US Scottish Rite Rose Croix is not invitational, and the conferral method is different in the two jurisdictions, and the York Rite portion is separate (as it is in England). More tellingly, the only GHit for this term in this context is this article. MSJapan (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * keep - It's correct that much of the article is an amalgamation of material covered much more extensively in the individual articles on the orders and degrees mentioned. However, since the Consolidated Rite seems to be mainly a specific path through the various Masonic orders and degrees available in England and doesn't have its own ritual, it's hard to add any material on its constituent orders and degrees that isn't already covered elsewhere. The way I see it, the Consolidated Rite is a particular way of grouping certain Masonic orders and degrees  that also exist elsewhere (a bit like the York Rite in the US). Just another Masonic degree system (see List of Masonic Rites) of which there are many. ImprovementUK (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply - However, it does not appear to be an "official" rite so much as a reference to a certain way of going through. Similarly, much work has been invested in creating a "chronological" list of degrees, but that doesn't affect the conferral in any manner.  Moreover, I wasn't able to find any references to this, so that is a big issue with respect to GNG as a standalone article, as well as the specificity of it. MSJapan (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Article is short on references, and google gives me 82 hits on the rite, mainly from its own site. That's not good, I expect 4 figures from real organisations. If anybody can find a link to UGLE that isn't self-referenced by Consolidated Rite, we're good. Otherwise, no notability, and possibly a bogus organisation. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read the disclaimer buried in this site. It starts "This site is for informational purposes only. It does not claim to represent a recognised Masonic body in the United Kingdom or elsewhere." It's not a masonic rite or organisation, it's a website. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It does not really matter whether the subject qualifies as a Masonic "Rite" or not... the important question is whether it is Notable enough (as a topic) for Wikipedia to have a stand-alone article about it.  I don't think it is. Both WP:GNG and WP:ORG require that a topic be discussed (in reasonable depth) by reliable sources that are independent of the topic.  Such sources simply do not exist.  Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blueboar - no independent reliable sources. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent reliable sources, and no other web site links to the reference site. Ahwiv (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (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.