Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodges of North Carolina


 * 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. Copyright issues force me to close this AfD as delete currently. Please note, there is no prejudice towards an early recreation of the article (and another early AfD in case the sources mentioned therein do not assist the article in qualifying on GNG). Additional suggestion to Eric, I can assist you in reinstating the article once you feel you're ready with material et al. Best.  Wifione  Message 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Masonic Lodges of North Carolina

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:IINFO, barely sourced. No other state has a list like this. None of the individual lodges is notable, and there are so many of them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep That 'otherstuffexists" (or "does not exist") is a weak rationale. "The list is too long" is also not part of any policy.  The material is actually sourced, and is a rational length compared with where it had been, and I rather think that is sufficient.  The topic, moreover, has a number of implications including the "Negro question" described in  specifically concerning the relationship of NC lodges with others.  also shows in what way this article certainly could be expanded, and absolutely is "notable" for sure.  Collect (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that "other stuff exists" or "does not exist" is a weak rationale. I will look at the books linked by Collect above and investigate expanding the list. In the mean time I will work on fixing the broken cite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the statement User:TenPoundHammer at "No other state has a list of every masonic lodge." on my talk page does not hold water as maybe the reason no other grand lodge has a list of every lodge in its jurisdiction is because no one has taken the time to create those lists. If there were to be a list for every grand lodge, then one of those lists would have to be the first one created. Here it is. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is in SERIOUS need of some more citation and should be based on more than 1 source. But I'm going to !vote keep if just to prevent articles from spinning up for each of these lodges. RadioFan (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm looking, and I'm not finding reliable sources that discuss Masonic lodges of North Carolina in particular in significant detail. The sources Collect mentions above are very short and really don't establish notability. Another point: this isn't about whether freemasonry is notable; it's whether a list of lodges in North Carolina is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are several thousand Masonic lodges in the United States (IIRC, Virginia has somewhere over 200).  Most are non-notable (the exceptions likely being a few of the very first lodges, maybe a few of the lodges in major cities, and those in notable locations).  If a list of perhaps a dozen lodges that were notable could be generated, then such a list would have its place; as it is, if a state has a few lodges of note, then pages could be made for those lodges and linked to the state's Grand Lodge page (assuming that it exists).  However, a mass listing of every lodge in a given state seems like a rather indiscriminate collection of information (and I shudder to think of entering "lodge #6" and getting a disambiguation page asking me which of sixty lodges I want).Tyrenon (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed Dead Link I fixed the dead link to the list on the GLNC website, but I doubt any of you care. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (but userfy) - Wikipedia is not a directory (even a historical directory). Also, notability is not established - for stand-alone list articles, the topic of the article is a group of people, places or things.  We must be able to demonstrate that this topic is notable - ie that the group is notable as a group.  To do this we must cite sources that talk about the group - as a group.  Such sources need to discuss the group with some degree of substance.  We would therefore need sources that actually discuss "Masonic Lodges of North Carolina" as a distinct concept.  I do not believe such sources exist.  There are sources that discuss the history of specific lodges on the list.  There are sources that discuss the history of Freemasonry in the State.  There are sources that discuss the history of the Grand Lodge.  But I do not believe there are sources that discuss all the lodges of NC as a distinct group separate from Freemasonry or the Grand Lodge.   I would normally suggest that the list be merged into a more generalized article (say "Freemasonry in North Carolina")... but given the length of the list in question, that would be impractical.  Finally, I know the editor who created this list spent a lot of time and effort on it.  I applaud that effort. I suggest userfication so he does not completely lose his hard work.  I would encourage him to create a personal webpage for the material, or perhaps contact the Grand Lodge and see if they would be interested in hosting it on their website. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful post - but specifically Wikipedia does not require "list articles" to be sourced to articles about the list!  If that were the case, there are hundreds (or more) of deletable lists.  So we are left with: Is the material reliably sourced? Yes. Do other reliable sources treat "Masonry in NC" as a topic? Yes.   Is Masonry per se a notable topic in US history? Yes.  Together those points allow this article to remain.    Collect (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the source has to be about the list... I am saying it has to be about the group that the list is listing. These are not the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication that the subject meets notability guidelines. I don't have a problem with sourcing; we can probably find more and that would make it better, but that wouldn't indicate notability. I'd rather see articles about each individual lodge if notability could be established. And, indeed, if any significant fraction of them were to be deemed notable individually...then this list might be itself notable. Frank  &#124;  talk  17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination statement fundamentally misunderstands WP:IINFO; all "X in one (geographical location)" is not indiscriminate, nor is an exhaustive listing a "directory" in the sense used by WP:NOT. Sources present seem adequate and authoritative. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree... I see no difference between this list and, say, a List of McDonald's Restaurants in North Carolina. Surely WP:NOT would apply if someone tried to create that article, so I think has to apply here.
 * In any case, the governing guideline here is WP:ORG - and in particular WP:ORG, which indicates that local chapters of larger organizations are rarely considered notable. If these lodges are not notable on an individual basis, how can we say they are notable enough to be listed as a group? Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's My Question There seems to be three different things that people take issue with regarding this list:
 * 1)That it is a DIRECTORY : I have made the argument that since it lists numerous lodges that no longer exist it is a historical listing as it can be used to look at what is called the "three great extincitions" of lodges in North Carolina. (The Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Vietnam Era) amoung other uses beyond a directory. Also, the orgianl list included links to website and dates of meetings which I took the time to remove as to make this list not a directory. Another historical aspect of the list is where it describes lodges merging. I recently came across an artifact from a lodge in Texas. It took me several hours on google to determine that that lodge had gone through several mergers to find the current group. Had there been a list like this available, that search would have been easier.


 * 2)That the lodges are themselves NOT NOTABLE individually and therefore the overall list is not notable. I think that a list like this is definetly a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I think it makes as much sense to have a list of all the lodges in a state as it would to have a list of all the the high schools or baptist churches. Another good example of a list where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts would be List of curling clubs in the United States (which I also created). The question has been asked "What makes the lodges in NC special as a group?" I would say that for one North Carolina is the only State Grand Lodge to have chartered another Grand Lodge (Tennessee) not to mention that Joseph Montford (who lived near Cape Fear) was given a warrant in the mid 18th Century by the Grand Lodge of Endgland as the "Grand Master of Masons in America" and he chartered most of the original lodges in the state as well as lodges in other states. No other state grand lodge can make that claim.


 * 3)People take issue that there is ONLY ONE SOURCE : OK, I'll accept that problem. Yes, I could spend hours and hours in libraries across the state and retreive old newspaper articles about a lot of these lodges. Yes, I could go to the Grand Lodge Archives in Raleigh and go through 220 years of "Proceedings of the Grand Lodge" books and reference the founding and, if applicable, closing of each and every lodge on the list. HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT: OK, let's say I go to all that trouble then some deletionist comes along and insists the article be deleted for reasons 1 or 2 above. All that effort would be wasted.


 * SO THERE IS MY TWO CENTS:If the list will not be deleted for number 1 or 2 I can work on number 3. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Eric, here's my thought (per above): The heart of the problem is the "top-down" approach to a list of local chapters. If you can demonstrate notability for a substantial number of lodges (such that a short list at the NC Grand Lodge's page would be unwieldy), then either a list or a category (like we often see for "Elections in Greece") would be in order.  The point you made (about NC chartering TN, and about Joseph Montford) would seem to fit on a page about "Freemasonry in North Carolina" or on the NC Grand Lodge...but it doesn't make a comprehensive list of the lodges notable.  I guess the dog that's barking loudly is the fact that, as yet, I don't know of any lodge that has a Wikipedia page, and considering that this list is basically of local chapters, it seems to fail #2.  However...why not get those bits of information and do a page on the NC Grand Lodge (which is almost assuredly notable) or Freemasonry in NC (which would also likely be a good article)?Tyrenon (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, an article "Freemasonry in North Carolina" and long been on my "to do" list and I just yesterday received a book that I've needed for a while. I suppose this list, and the list for Prince Hall once I have all that info would be better placed within that article. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a copyright infringement, as the whole table is copied vertabim from the first source cited. While information is not copyrightable, the text descriptions are and have not even been paraphrased by the author. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is a totally different process - and is not grounds for AfD deletion. Note further that the "bare list" (which is what is taken from the source), is not copyrightable as a list in itself, and that additional material, including corections, are made here.  This does not mean that the article has to be kept at AfD, but it does mean the simultaneous "speedy" is defective procedurally as a "reason to delete".  Collect (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the list is copyrightable due to the formatting of it and the editorial comments in the far right column. There is almost no other content, and therefore I believe it is eligible for speedy deletion irrespective of the other concerns with it. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is a matter for discussion at the proper venue - your blanking of the article and insertion of your personal judgement in so doing, is, however, a direct violation of AfD policy. Cheers.  Wait your turn. Collect (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this article may have copyright problems (flagged not by me, but another user at the copyright problems board, and per our policy should be blanked irrespective of other disputes. Copyright issues have legal considerations and therefore other policies are irrelevant. I suggest following the instructions on the notice, or asking an uninvolved administrator to review the case. Please do not reinstate the article text as it is potentially 'illegal as a copyright violation. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am so angry right now Why do I even bother? Maybe if I had received FIVE MINUTES WARNING on the copyright thing that just came out of the CLEAR BLUE  SKY I could have told you that I could most likely get a copyright release from the Grand Lodge! Let's say I go to the trouble to get that permission and get copyright issue resolved then the "Not Notable Mafia" will swoop in and say "Too bad!! Not notable! Delete! Delete! Delete!" Seriously... why do I even bother contributing to Wikipedia? Maybe I'll just become a deletionist troll and spend my leisure time nominating everything for deletion. At least then my work won't be undone all the time. Eric Cable |  Talk  20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Page is currently blanked under the aegis of a single editor who opines that the copyright violation is clear and irremediable, making this AfD moot if so, and certainly no one can opine of the AfD while it is blanked (Atche-22). Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Due to the possible copyright problems flagged by Tyrenon, as noted in the discussion above, the article has been blanked. Please see Copyright problems/2012 February 14 for more information. The AFD should be extended in my opinion, but anyone wishing to write an improved list can do so on a subpage of the article talk, and the article's history is still visible. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I need to address what happened in the order that it happened. I raised the possible copyvio at the page's talk page when I realized there was effectively a copy/paste of the article.  I was told to take it to the copyright problems page, which I did, and the blanking happened.  Note that about three days passed between me initially raising the issue and the whole blanking affair, and I got no response from Eric to the post on the talk page between the 11th and the 14th.  With all of that said, here's what I'm going to suggest:
 * Very Complex Vote:
 * -Eric, get permission to use the list with a release. It will just make everyone more at ease for a whole variety of reasons.  I actually didn't intend to raise the issue such as it came out, and I'm sorry for bringing this down on you...someone just suggested referring it to Copyright Problems before you could reply, and I followed the suggestion.
 * -Userfy the list as-is/as-was so that it can be referenced by Eric in working on future articles. There's a lot of information that can be extracted from it that is useful.
 * -The information should probably be partly integrated into an article on "Freemasonry in North Carolina" and/or on the NC Grand Lodge rather than as a stand-alone list. I would still be inclined to oppose the inclusion of quite so many lodges on the list (particularly the extensive number that have gone dark); however, I do believe that a summary of that information (for example, noting the large number of lodges that went dark during the "three extinctions", as I believe they were called) and so forth is good article material.
 * -I also wish to endorse extending this discussion for a few days, if just to discuss the suggestion that I've made.
 * -Tyrenon (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2012 (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.