Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California)


 * 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. Mandsford 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not meet notability guideline. Notability for buildings seems to indicate NRHP listing as the criterion for notability; see List of Masonic buildings for more on this. There are issues there, but the basis of that list is NRHP listing. The article here clearly states the building is not on the NRHP because the oweners did not wish it on there. It is not a unique building either in style or period of construction, and simply being "architecturally interesting" is too vague when it fails the major criterion for notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I was hoping MSJ would participate in a notability discussion first at the Talk page of the article, rather than bringing this to AFD, but i rather expected it to come here.  The AFD nomination is confused.  I believe MSJ feels on the one hand that NRHP listing does not convey notability for a building;  here he argues lack of NRHP listing status proves non-notability.  That is silly;  there are many buildings that are not NRHP-listed, including, in the United States, many historically important ones such as the White House, the Supreme Court building, and, well, many others.  I believe in AFD nominations there is some requirement or suggested guideline for nominators to look for sources, first.  Has that been done?
 * About the place, I have visited it and took photos a while back, which I'll look for and upload within a few days. I recall that, while it is not huge, it is a monumental kind of building that stands out as unusual in Pasadena, and that its Art Deco / zig-zag moderne styling is notable. --doncram (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Keep A few moments googling finds this. And i found wp:BEFORE which states requirements for an AFD nominator to follow, not followed. --doncram (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete fails GNG. The source found on google, pasadenascottishrite.org, doesn't demonstrate any coverage independent of the subject. NHRP explicitly declined the application. "Interesting" is a subjective opinion of the author of the wikipedia article. The citing of BEFORE is also misleading. That's not policy, nor a requirement, whether or not the non-policy is "adhered to."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, the NRHP accepted the listing and judged the place notable; hence the finding that the place was NRHP-eligible.  It's a technical matter that the building's owner, the Scottish Rite of Pasadena, apparently, chose to decline to allow the listing.  Pasadena is a city with a very active historic preservation community, and NRHP listing would likely bring the building within local building/historic preservation restrictions, as happens in a number of other jurisdictions, so an owner decision not to allow listing sometimes happens.
 * Whatever you say about WP:BEFORE, which is displayed on the AFD main page. Call them "guidelines" or "suggested requirements" that the nominator ignored then.  I just pointed to the very first hit in googling on "Scottish Rite Pasadena".  I expect there are some other google-accessible sources, and many offline sources, regarding this place.  I don't see how you can possibly come to a judgment that there is no independent coverage of the place, already.
 * About more sources, it should be possible to get a copy of an NRHP nomination form for the place, which is generally regarded as a reliable secondary source, even though the NRHP listing did not go through. There is a date and an NRHP reference number available.  I'll put in a request for that, but it usually takes a while to receive those from the U.S. National Register in Washington, D.C., when the documents are not available on-line (as for California).  Because I am somewhat interested in developing the article.  The AFD should be rejected outright, IMHO, but you are obviously free to disagree. --doncram (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you find reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to allow for the construction of an actual encyclopedia article on a building of established (rather than supposed or imagined or "expected") notability, let us know. This article should have never been created in the absence of appropriate sources. You haven't found any -- and neither has anyone else. If there's some clearly idiotic guideline that says everything on the NRHP is de facto notable, that's a pity -- but it still wouldn't trump the GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Bali ultimate.--Caravan train (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep There are three sources listed on the bottom of the page originally linked that you didn't like. Just because you cannot immediately access them doesn't make them invalid sources. As far as NRHP nominations, have you ever looked at one? They are generally long, well-written documents justifying why and how the place meets federal standards of notability. The documents include historic context, reasons for notability and a detailed bibliography of sources, among other things. It is for these reasons that throughout years of having them judged as sources that places that have passed such scrutiny and are known to have such sources available have come to be accepted as notable. I'm sure you might win a delete on any given one or many, and force there to be no coverage of the subject until someone with enough time or interest requests the document, or until it becomes available online. I am equally sure that when the document was received or available online, the article would be re-added. Given the reliability of the known to be availabile documents, I cannot see what good is done to the encyclopedia to exclude all coverage of those places until such time as someone has the time to request the document for each of the 80,000 places. We have the list itself, which as a source tells us that the federal government has reviewed the information and found the place to be notable. The criteria are available online. The database was, and will be available online. We know that this place would have been listed but for the whim of the owner. So, be arbitrary and delete it if you want to. But don't try to convince me that it's in order to protect the encyclopedia or to keep out coverage of something inappropriate. You may think the reasons for our believing that anything listed on the NRHP is notable are "idiotic", but I think it's idiotic to dismiss them without even asking upon what they were founded. Lvklock (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep Per NRHP nomination docs, web sources in the article and Los Angeles Times newspaper coverage, including this series from Feb. 16-18, 1925 when the cathedral was dedicated: CATHEDRAL TO BE DEDICATED: Services Will be Conducted in Pasadena Tomorrow New Scottish Rite Building Beautiful Edifice National Officers Are Here for Ceremonies TO DEDICATE CATHEDRAL: Everything in Readiness for Scottish Rite Ceremony at Pasadena This Evening SCOTTISH RITE HAS DEDICATION: Elaborate Ceremonies Take Place at Cathedral Several Hundred Masons of High Degree Present Further Programs Planned at Crown City Edifice. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Additionally, the Scottish Rite Cathedral has an entry in An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep There seems to be fair number of primary and secondary sources to establish notability. scope_creep (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep Its inclusion on this list: National Register of Historic Places should be sufficient to establish notability. --Crunch (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have notified the above editor that his vote rationale is directly contradictory to the basis of the AfD and facts established in the article. NHRP.com is not considered to meet RS. - MSJapan (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Historic Pasadena building that easily passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by AbbyKelleyite. Even eligible for the NHRP.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Abby Kelleyite and Oakshade.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, I'm not intending on voting in this. Given that this building is not listed it doesn't pass the NRHP project notability position, however if one takes a fairly generous position on the meaning of non trivial and independent of the subject then there are likely to be sufficient sources to meet the needs of the  General Notability Guideline.  Personally I'd say that rather abuses the notion of notability, but the majority of votes do tend to take a fairly lax position around evidence.  There are a number of aspects of this article, as with many of the similar stub articles, that would benefit from clarification around meaning and accuracy.  The use of the NRHP forms as a source does leave me considering our position on Primary and Secondary sources, the form looks like a primary source to me.
 * ALR (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lvklock, Abby Kelleyite, Oakshade, and Arxiloxos. The fact that the owner declined listing on the NRHP does not negate its eligibility for such listing. Notable buildings in the US don't have to be listed on the NRHP. clariosophic (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The sources which have been found so far demonstrate notability. In this specific case the site's non-inclusion on the NRHP speaks more toward its notability than against it, since it was historic enough to be listed before the owner objected. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - listing on a registry is evidence of notability, but not being listed is not evidence of non-notability. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2010 (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.