Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General list of masonic Grand Lodges


 * 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   no consensus, defaulting to keep. There seems to be a fairly even split between those supporting deletion under WP:NOT and those who think this is an appropriate list per WP:LIST. Both are valid arguments, but despite one relisting there simply doesn't seem to be a consensus for deletion at this time. -- jonny - m t  03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

General list of masonic Grand Lodges

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

Delete per WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information/link repository. This article is far too wide in scope; it purports to be a list of every Masonic Grand Lodge in the world with no limiting criteria. However, I can think of 20 "clandestine" Grand Lodges in just 2 US states that should be on here if that is the case, not to mention 4 in England. That's 24 entries right there, from just three jurisdictions. Also consider that my Grand Lodge-issued List of Recognized Lodges for my jurisdiction lists 120+ recognized grand jurisdictions, and not every jurisdiction recognizes every other. I'd postulate a list with well over 800 entries as a conservative estimate; this is unwieldy and useless, even if it was possible to do what the article claims. This list is not and never will be complete. Furthermore, WP should not be a reference for Masonic recognition - there are official references for this, because it changes all the time and is updated yearly, so this could be considered weak COPVIO as well. MSJapan (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wouldn't classify it as "indiscriminate information". Right off the bat, it tries to keep out "clandestine" by at least attempting to use "descending from the United Grand Lodge of England". I would hope if you have access to a Grand Lodge-issued List of Recognized Lodges, you may consider Cite'ing it as a source. "unwieldy and useless"? No, I dont believe editors will let it remain unwieldy for long, I can forsee where breaking it into several 'country' related sub-Articles would solve any of thoes concerns. Who is considering it useless??? I am willing to admit it does need work, the original French version shows how much TLC work this article needs.  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exit2DOS2000... you misread the sentence on inclusion... it reads: "This is a general list of masonic Grand Lodges across the World, descending from the United Grand Lodge of England or not, "regular" or not." (bolding mine). In other words it is attempting to list every Masonic Grand Lodge in existance... not just those descending from UGLE.  As far as Grand Lodges that descend from UGLE... We actually have a different article/list for those (see List of Grand Lodges). Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, as I Italicised at least attempting to use, you may have misread what I had written, NP. Am I to understand that you feel a large list attempting to list the "other" lodges is not encyclopedic? Or that you feel it is just useless? And as for the "A" recognises "B" but "B" does not recognise "A" argument that MSJapan wrote about (on my Talk Page), that is irrelevent. It would be an encyclopedic list of all of them, not just ones that "X" recognises this week. I would tend to think that this Article would be the perfect complementary list to List of Grand Lodges because of it's lack of political corrected-ness. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection isn't that IDONTLIKEIT... or that it is useless... but that it has an overly broad inclusion criteria. The problem is that it doesn't "at least attemt to use" any criteria.  It states that it includes everything, whether UGLE or NOT.  Now, UGLE isn't the be all and end all of Masonry... We actually have two main branches of Freemasonry (with a few sub-branches) - UGLE derived and Grand Orient of France (GOdF) derived.  Neither recognizes the other, but both are significant in the Masonic world.  If the article limited itself to those two branches, I would have no problem.  But it goes beyond that.  It also includes "fringe" Freemasonry (tiny groups that claim to be Masonic Grand Lodges, but which are not recognized by ANYONE.)  This isn't a political-correctness issue for me... it's a notability issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It also sounds like this could be a WP:COI issue from how you have worded it. I see no difference in the internal recognisions of this organization, X recognises Y but not Z. Z recognises neither X or Y. It all makes no differences. All of them are Freemason groups calling themselves Grand Lodges. What makes X less notable that Z ? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The size of X makes a difference. If it is nothing but 5 guys who formed their own Grand Lodge and have a webpage, they are not notable. Recognition by other bodies also makes a difference... I am not saying that it has to be recognition by any specific body... but I don't think you can call a tiny self proclaimed body a legitimate Grand Lodge. They have to be recognized as such, by someone other than themselves. At the moment, the list allows for anyone with a "secret password" and a web page to be listed. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So we should arbitrarily remove any group where the number of members is WP:NOTBIGENOUGH? Who would be the person to set that number, not me! "but I don't think you can call a tiny self proclaimed body a legitimate Grand Lodge" ... If they say they are and it can satisfy WP:V, would't not be Original research for US to say they are not ? I can understand why you may not want such an article, but it is encyclopedic to have this kind of information. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  17:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V is exactly what I am talking about, that and WP:FRINGE. We need reliable third party sources that tells us that a group that claims to be a Masonic Grand Lodge actually is a Masonic Grand Lodge... we should not rely on self-published proclamations. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - As detailed by the nominator, this would be a HUGE and unweildy list if properly maintained. More importantly, the list does not really discuss anything about the bodies that it lists... it simply lists them and includes a link to the webpage of the body in question.  To me, that makes this list nothing more than a link repository... which is contrary to WP:NOT. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Blueboar. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Both Keep - Why not combine the information from General list of masonic Grand Lodges and List of Grand Lodges. Put some work and effort into the project. If we delete this list we should then consider deleting List of Grand Lodges aswell. Both are reletivaly the same, a list of links. Whatever we apply to one we can apply to the other, correct? Zef (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: List of Grand Lodges is probably misnamed. It should probably be renamed List of Masonic Grand Lodges decending from the Grand Lodge of England - by chronology (or something like that), as is an attempt to show the chronology of decent from a single source (UGLE)... it's focus is on when the various bodies were formed, and not on what the bodies are. (the citations are to show when the bodies were formed, not that they exist).
 * The general list, on the other hand, is far broader in scope (I would say overly broad). It attempts to list every single body that calls itself a Masonic Grand Lodge (or Grand Orient).  The problem is that there are literally hundreds of tiny, non-notable, bodies that do this.  Bodies that no-one else recognizes as being "masonic".  The list is quickly going to attract fringe groups.  Take for instance the group that calls itself the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" - sounds impressive, but in reality it consists of perhaps a total 50 men who created their own Grand Lodge (note: RGLE had an article that was deleted about a year and a half ago for being NN).  Yet this tiny body fits within the scope of the general list.  Of course, such bodies are going to want to "cite" the fact that they exist... and so will add a link to their webpage... which ends up making the list nothing but a link directory.
 * If there was some sort of defined inclusion criteria... a nod to notability (say being recognized by one of the larger, more prominent Grand Bodies, or something)... I would have less of a problem with this... but as it is, it is unweildy. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I know what the List of Grand Lodges is. I started the article and regret it ever since. They are both just that, a list. The General list of masonic Grand Lodges page does have some useful information for each Grand Lodge. When it was founded, how many Lodged are within its area, total members, International Relations and a link to the Grand Lodge web site. The List of Grand Lodges page has this information aswell. When it was founded (in cronological order) and a refrence to the Grand Lodge web site. The General list of masonic Grand Lodges page seems to have more information about the Grand Lodges themselves. That and it's complete and organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zef (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But that still leaves us with the unweildiness of the list's criteria. To illustrate, I have added three or four "Fringe" Grand Lodges (groups with only two or three subordinate lodges, if that, and less than 100 members, who are not recognized by any other body), and I could add a lot more along the same lines.  As I said, I would be much happier about this list if it had some sort of concrete inclusion criteria. Anyone can claim to be a Grand Lodge... not all who do so really are.  Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MSJapan (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, very useful page, if it grows out of proportion it may be subdivided by continent, nation, state/province, region, county, et cetera.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: All users have a vote regardless of the amount of time they have been editing. Please keep your personal opinion about other users to yourself. Myheartinchile has been editing since 18:36, 21 May 2008, four days before the article was put up for deletion by MSJapan (06:53, 25 May 2008).


 * Keep & Improve with mature discussion: Opinions change. Zef (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete wp:not a directory and somne of the listing are not credible Boooooom (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful list that will improve with exposure and better organization and discussion.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not an article. nothing but a link directory --T-rex 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously not indiscriminate. The potential length is not a reason to delete since the list may spin off sublists. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it spawns sublists, then it wouldn't be a "general list of Masonic Grand Lodges" anymore. MSJapan (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is normal for us to have tiered lists and categories. If the name needed tweaking to reflect this then that would be achieved by a move, not by deletion. And since this is speculative, there is no need for action now. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as it is just a list; there are no descriptions there is no context. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:20, 8 June 2008 (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.