Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England


This very minor list is being misused as an advertising vehicle (causing it to have false information), and there is a growing concern that this list is non-maintainable and of too wide a scope to be useful. Were it to be pared down to its smallest incarnation, it would then simply be a rewritten copyvio of the official recognition page of UGLE. MSJapan 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per CSD A3. Sr13 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rever e ndG 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this list is composed primarily of links to external websites for lodges which are probably non-notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory.  --Hyperbole 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. Sigh. --Natalie 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep not really, I don't find this to be non-maintainable at all. Atlantis Hawk  03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it is maintainable, but whatabout the other points raised in the nom?--67.85.183.103 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above--67.85.183.103 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a directory, listcruft. Ter e nce Ong 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Advertising isn't really what masons do. Remove the false information, keep the article. Catchpole 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Define false. The issue of recognition in masonry means this page will be either:  refelective of one jurisidiction's list, and therefore both POV and copyvio; or unwieldy (in terms of being a list of links that boil down to (friend of a friend of) contstantly changing information--Vidkun 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Remove all the links to the lodges websites and have it as a pure list and I am ok with keeping it.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Black-Velvet  13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since the UGLE website is apparently the only source for this list, a link to that website from United Grand Lodge of England will provide this information without any maintanence on Wikipedia. -- Alan McBeth 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT a directory, with endorsement for Alan McBeth's comment directly above. Barno 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Sharkface217 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory, and it seems POV in selection criteria. Moreschi 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to me that this is unecessary to say the least. michael <span
 * Delete per nom. Pointless. WJBscribe 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Abstain ... the concept seems a valid as any other such list. If we can get a valid primary source to base the list off and prune it of false info and advertising the list would be quite helpful. There are like 1600 lodges.  If someone wants to do the work, then fine... but I don't think it's a problem to just leave a link to the lodge website in the article on UGLE.  ---J.S  (T/C) 00:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I was one of the people who expanded this article from being ONLY UGLE to including those recognized by those UGLE recognizes.  Without that, it's inherently POV.  With that, however, it is an unwieldy list of links.--Vidkun 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it UGLE's formal policy to recognize any lodge recognized by those it recognizes? Can this be documented?  (Sorry; with so much "secret", and thus unverifiable, information related to such organizations, and with so much false information put out over the last several centuries by Templar-hunters and propagandists, we need to be especially vigilant about citing reliable sources and checking seemingly reliable ones for bogosity.)  Barno 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not believe so; as a matter of fact, there was a lodge added to the list that was recognized by the Grand Lodge in Scotland (which is recognized by UGLE), but was not itself recognized by UGLE. I would like to point out here that there's actually quite a lot of good (and verifiable) information available on Freemasonry - you just need to look at books in commercial bookstores more than at Internet sites and self-published pamphlets. MSJapan 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is only a very small number of private material in Masonry (about 9 actually), unless you believe the conspiracy theorists. Recognition isn't secret, but it's complex and heavily influenced by political machinations.  In principle should one GL recognise and unrecognised GL then either the third GL would be recognised by the first, or recognition of the second should be ceased.  That should illustrate the maintenance difficulty.ALR 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete: This article is not notable. See WP:What Wikipedia is not.--Meno25 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not easily maintainable without exposure to inter-GL politics, and changes would be primary source material.ALR 09:25, 2 December 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.