Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho


 * 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The result was   Keep, withdrawn by nominator. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Idaho

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Tagged for references since 2008. Only source is Bessel, which seems to be regarded as inadequate in another AFD discussion. Notability not established. Main content is a list of local chapters; Wikipedia is not a directory. doncram (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I concede that consensus seems to be Keep, and ask to withdraw my deletion nomination / close this now. FYI, I commented in just-closed Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti citing from some statements by editors here.  I respectfully thank the participants here for your consideration. --doncram (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bessel is fine for establishing the existence of the Grand Lodge... but not for establishing notability. I have no problem with deleting this if there are no sources for it.  While the concept of a Masonic Grand Lodge is notable, I do not believe that individual Grand Lodges are inherently so.  If you look at List of Masonic Grand Lodges, you will see that there are literally hundreds of Grand Lodges around the world (over a hundred in the US alone).  Some of these are notable, but many (if not most) are not.  If we can not establish notability as per WP:ORG for an individual Grand Lodge, we should not have an article on it.  Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The sheer size and history of state level grand lodges make them notable. Sources are difficult to find because they are often in these old things we used to call books but with a little work they can be easily found. PeRshGo (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, to list grand lodges as not inherently notable supports the falsehood that Freemasonry is one international organization when it most certainly isn’t. It is a group of individual grand lodges with mutual recognition. Each grand lodge is an entirely autonomous organization. So when we are talking about the Grand Lodge of Idaho keep in mind we are talking about an organization that it itself has had thousands upon thousands of members. PeRshGo (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I raised the the issue of Grand Lodges not being inherently notable exactly because each Grand Lodge is an an entirely autonomous organization unto itself... ie we have to judge the notability of each grand Lodge independently, on its own merits, and not assume that because one GL is notable, they all are. Some GLs are definitely notable ... but others are not.  Some are discussed in sources (you are correct that we need to check old-fashioned dead tree books) while others are not.  The question is... are there really any sources (including books) on this particular Grand Lodge, ie the Grand Lodge of Idaho?  I have searched for sources (and yes, even looked for books) and have yet to find a reliable independent source that discusses the GL Idaho beyond a passing reference.  For example, I went to The Livingston Masonic Library here in NY (one of the largest Masonic libraries in the US)... it does not have anything that would qualify under WP:ORG.  I agree that an organization with a membership in the thousands should logically be notable... but so far the evidence does not seem to support this logical deduction.  If anyone knows of a source, please share it with me... I would love to change my delete vote... but, please don't assume that references exist. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep very notable subject, and per above statements.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a grand lodge in the Anglo-American tradition. That's notable enough. JASpencer (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this source goes some way to establishing independent notability. Also various encyclopedia at Google books, admittedly by Freemasons or Odd Fellows, mention the subject frequently. I have, unfortuntely, found that many specialist encyclopediae are to some degree or other either directly or indirectly SPS (e.g., a denominational encyclopedia published by either a publisher or university affiliated with that denomination), admittedly, but then I think even the SPS encyclopediae go some way toward establishing notability. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst intellectually it seems that an individual GL should be notable we should also be able to comply with policy to demonstrate that. Not all GLs have the independent, substantial treatment in reliable sources to assure compliance, and use of primary sources leads us into synthesis and original research territory.  In practice not all GLs do have much significance in Freemasonry, their influence is limited to their geographic extent and no more, Idaho may reasonably be one of those.  That said, PershGo makes a valid point that the indiscriminate inclusion of individual GLs reinforces the message that Freemasonry is not some monolithic worldwide entity but is instead a collection of mutually engaged bodies.  Whilst it's an interesting argument that message itself is already communicated in other articles and I'm not sure that sheer volume of articles really contributes to it.
 * ALR (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2010 (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.