Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Welcome Lodge


 * 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 (non-admin closure). No consensus to delete. Ruslik (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New Welcome Lodge

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

No assertion of notability, historical WP:CRYSTAL (what its notability would be never actually occurred). Prod rm'ed as supposedly notable. The article topic (a Masonic lodge) looks notable because it was a specialty lodge for Labour politicians (which looks like a nice conspiracy theory piece), but special interest lodges are nothing new in Freemasonry. That doesn't actually figure into the deletion criteria. what does is that the article states (from a source) that later in the same year the Lodge was founded, the Labour Party fragmented, and within five years the membership was opened up to all Westminster Palace employees. Therefore, it never actually succeeded in its goal, meaning its supposed notability was never really actualized, which is historical WP:CRYSTAL. MSJapan (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG, local chapters of international organizations are rarely notable. I think the nom has it right... The only thing that might have made this lodge notable would be if a reliable source claimed that some sort of nefarious connection between the Lodge and the Labour party existed.  But since no sources claims this the connection (apparently because the connection was never actually made), the lodge simply isn't notable.  Question: the article uses past tense, does this lodge even exist any more? Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are Herbert Morrison and Hugh Dalton notable enough? One doesn't have to believe them (it's a stretch to be honest) but the fact was the claims were made that the New Welcome Lodge was credited by two prominent politicians with changing the course of British political history. This is a claim repeated by a number of historians. JASpencer (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Herbert Morrison claimed that this lodge was responsible for him losing the Labour leadership in 1935. I'd say that this on its own makes it notable.  It was also commonly believed to have been set up by the then Prince of Wales specifically to stop Labour MPs being blackballed from London lodges.  That also makes it notable.  I'd suggest that MSJapan withdraws his nomination. JASpencer (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable and a very well sourced article. Dwain (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep IF there some way to independently verify the assertions in a single, somewhat obscure, secondary source. The sourcing for this article depends on the footnotes in a particular minor journal which cite a number of primary and secondary sources. If everything asserted here is true (or at least individually verifiable), the notability criteria of WP:ORG are clearly met; but my concern is that the importance and notability of the subject may have been synthesized by assembling these indirect sources, as opposed to having a real source that says directly that the Lodge was important because of its connections to particular political events. Thus given the presumption of fundamental accuracy of the sources, I argue for keep in the hope that the article can be improved. --MCB (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- This is not WP:CRYSTAL but a legitimate counter-factual historical argument. The influence of Freemasons on British public life has been a notable subject in recent years.  This is a significant contribution to that.  While the article is largely based on the work of one academic, it is based on proper academic sources.  These are summarised in the article.  Furthermore the synthesis is not that of the WP author, but that of the academics quoted.  Note: I have just tidied up some of the unnecessary repetition in the reference apparatus.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's a "counter-factual historical argument"? JASpencer (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Zef (talk) 05:25, 19 August 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.