Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Lodges recognized by the Regular Grand Lodge of England (RGLE)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Grand Lodges recognized by the Regular Grand Lodge of England (RGLE)
The main article: Regular Grand Lodge of England had been deleted. So should this list page that derives from it. Wikipedia is not a) free web space b) propaganda c) original research d) an indiscriminate collection of information or a junk yard.. Delete and protect Blueboar 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree - Delete per WP:NOT. -- MarcoTolo 01:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --DV8 2XL 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MSJapan 02:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and protect. -- Ardenn  02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 05:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect per nom. Looks like article Regular Grand Lodge of England has been deleted 7 times --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT. --Ter e nce Ong 06:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and protect. DarthVad e r 09:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Mason-cruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The main article was deleted because in the first instance it was a copyvio and has not been recreated using non copyright material since. Its deletion has no effect on this discussion, as its notability has not been challenged at all. In response to the allegations, this article does not seem to fit the criteria below indiscriminate collection of information, it is a well defined grouping of organisations. Free web host does not apply in this situation as it is a simple list of information. Propaganda relates to biased material, this article does not seem to have serious problems in this respect, and if it did the appropriate action would be to be bold and make it fit NPOV. How original research fits into this I do not know. The information just needs to be sourced, that is not cause for deletion. Ans  e  ll  10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ansell, "free web host" does apply here: a single website on a free webhost does not constitute a reliable source. Therefore, this information is unverifiable and may be original research. Therefore, it should be deleted in accordance with policy. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The source that I put on the page is from their official website. It is not a free web hosting service, and as such is verifiable. I dont see how this would be original research, it is sourced from their site. Ans  e  ll  23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Their own website is suspect, so how can it then be considered a verifiable source?  Ardenn  02:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ansell Jcuk 23:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Subjects website is usually not a reliable source. -- e ivindt@c 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Buchanan-H  e  rmit™ .. SCREAM!!! ..[[Image:Flag of British Columbia.svg|24px]]..[[Image:Maple Leaf.svg|14px]] 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ansell. Good, well-ordered list of organizations. -- JJay 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT the RGLE's website. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteALR 19:14, 10 May 2006 (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.