Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers

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

No assertion of notability - the group is under 10 years old; their own home page (and single article source) is dead, and they are a splinter group of a splinter group. MSJapan (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added to prove its notability.Pvosta (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers is one of three organisations in which the liberal masonic lodges have united, not a splinter group.Pvosta (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The UGLE don't recognise the Grand Orient de France for the same reason, atheism and not lack of notability. JASpencer (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. An obvious delete. No outside sourcing. It's too young to be accepted and it's not even recognized by the UGLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SynergeticMaggot (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - Some explanation is called for... This is an umbrella organization, designed to coordinate discussions between several European Masonic bodies on items of mutual interest. But it is not a supervisory body or something that has any real binding influence on Freemasonry in the various jurisdictions that belong to it.  It is sort of like having a regularly scheduled conference of City Mayors, who might meet to discuss issues such as how they all deal with wellfare reform and crime.  It is one of several such organizations in European Freemasonry that are constantly forming, breaking apart, and reforming.  What makes this particular one more notable than the others is who is a member.  This group has the participation of a few of the largest and most influential of the miriad Masonic Jurisdictions in Europe (note... these particular Jurisdictions are all considered "irregular" splinter groups by the vast majority of Masonry world wide, which is why we have the "splinter of splinter" issue).  Of particular noteworthiness is the Grand Orient de France (the largest of three Masonic Grand Bodies in that country).  The question is whether having a few noteworthy members equates to the organization itself being notable,  I think it does... just.  However, I am extremely concerned about the lack of independant secondary sources in this article.  Essentially, all the sources are internal... which tells me that the group considers itself notable, but does not establish that the world at large considers it notable.  If this is kept, reliable secondary sources are a must. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the international body of the French and Belgian lodges. It's clearly notability. JASpencer (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Its one thing to claim notablity. Its another to substantiate it. It doesnt satisfy org. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as independent sources indicating notability have been added. Pvosta (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Which are the independant secondary sources? Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer Pietre Stones and Paul Bessell. JASpencer (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the article does not list Bessel as a source (though it could). Secondly, I am not sure if Bessel and Pietre Stones are what WP:ORG has in mind by independent reliable sources... both are Masonic in origin.  I would think that WP:ORG, when it requires sources "independent of the subject", implies a source beyond the relatively insular world of Freemasonry.
 * Third, I have difficulty with saying that Bessel and Pietre Stones establish notability, even if you stretch the idea of "independent" to include them. Bessel is essentially just collecting documents issued by SIMPA and similar orgs; he does not discuss them or comment on them in any detail... and The Pietre Stones article is an overview of the regularity issue... ie a Mason from Group A explaining the history behind why Masons from Group B are not considered "regular".  Neither goes into enough detail to tell us what make SIMPA notable. These sources are really more appropriate for use as External Links than sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See also *Note See also Articles_for_deletion/CLIPSAS and Articles_for_deletion/International_Masonic_Union_Catena. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - ignorant mass nominations - should all be removed owing to clear lack of judgement on part of nominator, despite sincerity - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - per Blueboar and others above. Also, regretably, being a "splinter group of a splinter group" is factually irrelevant to this, or any, such discussion. The same term could be used to describe most of the religious organizations on the planet, of which several thousand have extant articles, and many others could have. 207.160.66.129 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's not even recognized by the UGLE doesn't matter to Wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 12:35, 12 March 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.