Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicitaries


 * 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   redirect to Freemasonry.  MBisanz  talk 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Felicitaries

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod with no reason given. In the context of the article, this order lasted all of five years, and was not popular. Therefore, it does not assert its notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's enough evidence that this existed, and it has historical value. § FreeRangeFrog 05:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect - To Freemasonry. There is enough evidence (in the form of a concept called Adoptive masonry) that this group existed, but per nom, I don't think there is enough material here to warrant a standalone article, unless someone else can come up with some refs. Google Books is good, but it's not perfect. § FreeRangeFrog 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - mere existance is not enough to pass WP:ORG. FreeRangeFrog says it has historical value... perhaps he/she can explain what that historical value is?  The subject seems to have been a tiny, short lived organization that had no impact on the rest of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the subject being a perfectly well-sourced historical fact, and this being an encyclopedia, I would think that the only policies that would apply to it are WP:RS and WP:V, both of which seem to be fully satisfied. And as far as I know we're not running out of disk space. I'm curious as to which policy or guideline you're using to support your delete vote? § FreeRangeFrog 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are WP:NOTE in general, and WP:ORG (the notability guideline that discusses organizational groups). Both of which say that notability needs to be established through reliable third party sources.  This is not the case with this article.  In fact, the article contains only one reference (Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry), which does not even mention Felicitaries (much less establish why it should be considered notable).  Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe a redirect and mention in the Freemasonry article? Perhaps there isn't enough material out there for a standalone article. See page 4 here. So I guess I agree on the notability issue under WP:ORG. § FreeRangeFrog 19:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the main Freemasonry article is too broad sweep to mention specific groups (especially one as tiny as this). At best it would rate a passing mention Women and Freemasonry, but even there I have my doubts.  See my comment below as to why this particular group is not really worth discussing. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notably historic, in part because it was one of the "adoptive" masonic orders (permitted women). It's referenced (google books has some other refs too) and no real risk of promotional or POV issues. Shadowjams (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think accepting women is enough to establish notability. Adoptive (ie Female) Masonic orders are not that rare, especially in France (Acceptance of women was, and is, one of the differences between French Freemasonry and English Freemasonry)... the key is to examine whether Felicitaries is notable within the context of adoptive Freemasonry. Was it the first to admit women? Did it have a major influence on other, more successful adoptive bodies (such as Le Droit Humain)?  If so, then I could agree that it was historically notable... but this does not seem to be the case. This is what I mean by "mere existance" not being enough.  There has to be something other than existance to make it notable.  Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:49, 6 March 2009 (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.