Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti


 * 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. Those making the keep argument have presented a necessary minimum of reliable source material to craft a quality encyclopedia article about the subject. Clearly meets the basic requirements of notability guidelines. Steven Walling 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sons of Haiti

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No notability asserted in article, and Google brings up very little information not associated with Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve The article, just recently started as a stub, does not yet meet standards for a good article, but its improvement can be covered by normal editing processes. Tag it "refimprove" and "expand" maybe.  Or just develop it, using Google-accessible sources to start.  The topic of the article is a black Masonic organization, and it has received snide comments from Masonic wikipedians at a couple Talk pages already.  I gather that Masonites are snobby and have insular language ("bogus" and other terms) to deprecate fraternal organizations that represent schisms or differences of belief about their "craft".  I think that the Sons of Haiti subgroup or separate fraternal organization group is probably as worthy, certainly to have one Wikipedia article.  There are, I think, hundreds of Wikipedia articles about Masonite lore and groupings, worded often mysteriously to put a good face forward and to avoid revealing precious secrets.


 * The coverage available relating to the organization in Seattle, Washington is valid coverage, not yet developed in this article. However browsing shows the organization exists in Georgia and various places besides Seattle as well.  It is a widespread organization and I believe coverage does support its topic as a valid Wikipedia subject. --doncram (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to keep and improve it -- I'm just questioning whether it's possible to demonstrate WP:N using WP:RS. Existence isn't really enough to justify an article, and the none of the sources I found when I checked before filing this demonstrated anything but existence.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily have time or interest to develop this a lot myself, but here are some pieces of information:
 * Sons of Haiti is a black fraternal organization that operates in U.S. states of Washington, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. (Bessel webpage has 3 separate mentions, in these three states)
 * It is a black Masonic order
 * It is a subgroup of Freemasonry, a subdivision of the Prince Hall (black) freemasonry.
 * The Sons of Haiti in Seattle Washington operated at [Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington)|Washington Hall]] from 1973 to 2009. (various sources)
 * There is a Sons of Haiti Lodge in Renton, Washington. The City of Renton City Council "recognized August 11, 2010 as Sons of Haiti Supreme Council Day".


 * I believe that some of the numerous Masonic editors in wikipedia may have books about Prince Hall freemasonry and other sources that would speak to the history of this organization, or access to libraries that have such. --doncram (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure SoH is a "subgroup" of Masonry, but the Bessel ref definitely doesn't support that they're associated with Prince Hall Masonry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Renton lodge is the same as the Seattle one ... it is their new location after they sold Washington Hall. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, i had misinterpreted the 3 columns in the Bessel tabulation of Masonic organizations. It in fact gives 1) "Mainstream" or "AF&AM" or "generally-recognized" Grand Lodges, 2) "Official" Prince Hall Grand Lodges, and 3) Other Grand Lodges.  Out of sight of the headers, down in the table, I had misinterpreted the 3rd column entries in each state as being components of the 2nd column entries.  Anyhow, there are apparently differences amongst types of Masonic organizations that may mean a lot to some members, may mean nothing to others, and which don't seem terribly important to explain in Wikipedia.  Or, perhaps the contention among them is worthy of discussion.  I don't want to give airplay to the bogus-looking blog-like websites about which are "bogus" or not.  It hardly seems right for several self-acknowledged Masonic members here, i presume of column type 1, to be deleting all mention of the type 2 and type 3 organizations from Wikipedia, if that is what is going on.  I suspect that there are few or no persons of column type 2 or type 3 who are editor-members of WikiProject Freemasonry, which may choose to itself cover only type 1.  But, this is an organization that exists and it should not be for WikiProject Freemasonry or one or a few Masonic members to erase mention of the other types. --doncram (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure of any PHA members of WPFreemasonry, but they'd certainly be welcomed there. My GL officially recognizes the PH GLs in CT and MA, and the MA GL actually has a lodge in Bangor, near where I live. I could visit them, if I knew where and when they met... After column 2, though, things get fuzzy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete organisation with no notability stated in the article. If they're notable, then prove it.  There certainly isn't anything saying so in the article whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I too have tried to find sources on this organization with no results. There is no indication that they can meet the standards set out at WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the article barely 24 hours old at this point, and I'm appauled that it's tagged for deletion so quickly as it does not run foul of Deletion policy except for perhaps Notability, though it does (now) have the required two links. Markvs88 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the Washington Hall coverage in my nomination. Can you find anything notable about the organization, rather than the building? If so, I'd love to have it added. I'm generally an inclusionist, and will withdraw my noms given sufficient incentive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is now up to 4 citations so it meets notability standards. As for building vs. group, that they were the owners is in itself notable. As you might be aware, Masonic coverage is usually pretty scarce in the media other than the occasional picture of Shriners in a parade. :-| I'm also not from the area, so it's not like I'm doing anything other than using search engines. However, I *did* find something on the Oregon chapter and have added it to the article. Markvs88 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Portland MLK source does not indicate that there is an "Oregon chapter"... note the commas... this could be the Washington group traveling down to Portland. The citations is trivial... listing the Sons of Haiti among the many groups that were volunteers at the event. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of citations is not the standard by which we judge notability. WP:ORG says: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.  I would say that the citations that have been added since this AfD started fall into the "Trivial or incidental coverage" category.  What is needed is a source that actually discusses the organization in some depth. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused then -- a citation from a Masonic group saying another group is bogus is most certainly notable and verifiable, as is a citation from the City of Portland. Yes, I agree such a document would seriously help the article, but that's not the point -- it is verifiable (though a stub) and should not be deleted. Markvs88 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Blueboar, you have previously mentioned going to a New York Masonic Grand Lodge library occasionally to do research. Could you possibly go again soon, or check on your next trip, for books discussing these organizations.  Also, can you tell remotely using any online index, if there are books there which would seem likely to cover the column 2 and column 3 type Masonic organizations, and/or disagreements among them?
 * And, I guess i agree with Markvs88, that reliable discussion of which organizations are regarded as "bogus" by others might well be appropriate and used in the article. As well as city of Portland and other sources being reliable about the notability of the organization, whether they go into the internecine warfare or not. --doncram (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A valid point... we have not checked "dead tree" sources. I am actually going in to the Livingston Library this afternoon to look up something else... so I will be happy to see if there is anything on the Sons of Haiti.
 * As for the Phylaxis web page... The coverage is trivial... the reference is simply the inclusion of the Sons of Haiti name in a list of many organizations that Phylaxis considers "bogus Masonry". There is no significant discussion of why they list the Sons, or of the organization itself.
 * Notability isn't based on the number of citations that mention an org, its based on the quality and depth of coverage within those citations. A plethora of trivial passing references and incidental coverage does not demonstrate notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching in Google books, there's a Langston Hughes poem with "Sons of Hait" being a line.
 * 115 page book about Sons and Daughters of Haiti Supreme Council, souvenir journal
 * Son's and Daughters of Haiti June Secession 1983, published by the Seattle Washington lodge, 1983.
 * Philip W. Scher 2009 book covering Haitians abroad as one topic, not necessarily specifically this Masonic group, but providing background.
 * Multiple hits on "Sons of Haiti" or "Sons and Daughters of Haiti" which seem to suggest the phrases have significant meaning, like "The Diaspora" being of great significance as a term for other peoples. I wonder if the Langston Hughes usage was an early use of this term or whether it echoed other usage. --doncram (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: true, except that this subject per WP:NRVE has "reputable media sources and other reliable sources generally". The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Maintaining an historic building, working a local governmental affair and being blacklisted by another group are all verifiable and all noteworthy. That there is no single source stating details on the group is hardly surprising -- even the New York City Police Department lacks that. Having a FAQ like Historic Seattle does is not a requirement for an article, either. Markvs88 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than passing references in a few articles that are primarily about a historical building, what "reputable media sources and other reliable sources generally" discuss this organization? Seriously, I think you are trying to build a house of cards on very flimsy foundation here.  But we can let other editors look at the sources and decide. (side question... do we have a source for the "Sons of Haiti" and the "Sons and Daughters of Haiti" being the same org? or are people simply assuming that they are because the names are similar). Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I count 3 out of 7 about the building and it's purchase/sale by the group. 1 listing by the City of Portland as being/working a notable event. 1 by Prince Hall Freemasonry claiming they're not a legitimate masonic group. 1 listing by Bessel listing them as a masonic group and 1 by the City of Renton giving them their own day. Even if you (unjustly) ignore the building references, the other four conform to The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. That the four sources don't reveal the secret handshake and name of the Tyler is moot... this page is better referenced than Grand Lodge of Connecticut! Side question: I have none, that was in the article before I got involved. Markvs88 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy to wait for more content, unless new sources are found before this AfD expires. Delete. I sympathize with Doncram's reasons for starting this article, but there's not enough WP:RS substance to form the basis of an article (or establish notability, for that matter). However, I did find a website for this organization at http://sohscusa.com/haitiusa/Home.html -- with an interesting story at http://sohscusa.com/haitiusa/AboutUs.html (click on the first button; the second button doesn't work). It seems that this is an African American Masonic organization that was formed in Seattle after a legal squabble with the Prince Hall Masons. I expect that Blueboar and other Freemasons will weigh in on how "Masonic" they are. Regardless of the verdict on that topic, the organization's own website plus a bunch of articles about the group's ownership of that Seattle building aren't enough of a basis for an article, however. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: My "userfy" recommendation is essentially a "Delete" !vote, but I was suggesting that the article could be moved to Doncram's user space so he can expand it if and when he finds some solid content. In my interactions with Doncram, I have seen that he often is eager to start stub articles about new-found topics before he has assembled the necessary content or sources, or before he has written up the content he has found. If he were to keep this content in user space until it is properly developed, AfDs such as this one could be avoided. In this particular case, the best result might be the development of a broader-topic article that includes information about the Sons of Haiti, such as the "African American Freemasonry" article I suggested below. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks. I don't think userifying is appropriate, especially now that multiple people have been editing in the article and its Talk page.  It's not my article, and I would prefer for Sons of Haiti members and other prospective future editors to be able to find it, in mainspace.  Also, I gotta admire how you can stick with your persistent jabbing at me, through time.  If another editor hides up your sarcasm directed at me in a closed box "Discussion not directly relevant to this AfD", you trot out additional personally directed stuff elsewhere.  I've seen you do this before in other discussions, refining your jabs at me up and down, to get a good effect but not be too clearly over the wp:NPA threshold.  It would be just terrible if our sometimes cooperation were to be misinterpreted by others;  better make sure the dislike is more apparent!  Thanks, actually, for finding the SoH webpage with its history, anyhow. --doncram (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, if you aren't interested in the userfy option (which I thought would be less disruptive than deletion), I'll just change my !vote to delete. (I made the change above.) --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as your Delete vote isn't personal. :)  I am in fact proud that i have identified numerous topics worthy of Wikipedia articles, and have often started stub articles.  Often, as for the Danish Brotherhood in America, the other fraternal association that owned Washington Hall in Seattle, the topic develops nicely sooner (in that case) or later.  What's different here seems to be the Masonic-focused editors and long-running contention involving them, me, Orlady, others.  Too bad for all of us. --doncram (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doncram, I'd really suggest cutting out the personal insinuations. The lede of Danish Brotherhood says 'A period report said of the Danish Brotherhood, "This is by far the strongest and most influential secular organization about the Danes in America."' Where's the comparable cite for Sons of Haiti? If this article had a similar statement, this never would have gone to AfD. Believe me, I looked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am pleased that you found their website, as it indicates that they are not a complete "two guys with a website calling themselves a Grand Lodge" type scam (I didn't think they were, but this is always an issue that has to be considered). Freemasonry (and especially African-American Freemasonry) is full of splinter groups and schisms... Wikipedia does not care which of them are considered Masonicly "legitimate" or not... but it does care which of them can be considered notable... and that is demonstrated by whether they are discussed in any depth by reliable third-party sources.  In this case, that does not seem to be the case.  Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And what is the bar for depth? It's not like Lodge Minutes is a column in the local newspaper. Markvs88 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment about related Masonic organization articles It seems relevant to note the complete lack of sourcing, or poor and inadquate sourcing, in other Masonic organization articles. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania article has one source, dated 1961. There is no source whatsoever in Grand Lodge of Kansas, which was tagged by me on September 2 for sources and notability. I am wondering about opening an AFD there. Surely those calling for deletion of this Sons of Haiti article, 1 day old, would agree that a long-unsourced, completely unsourced article like that should be speedily deleted, right? I think the AFD opening here was unnecessarily aggressive, when tagging for addition of sources would have been more appropriate. --doncram (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup... I knew someone would argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is an important difference, however... A quick Google search shows that reliable and independent sources do exist to support an article on those organizations, while an exhaustive search is turning up almost nothing on the Sons of Haiti. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way... Per your request, I went to the Livingston Masonic Library here in NY... nothing found. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason it isn't (usually) acceptable to just tag an article for sources is that editors tend to just ignore those tags. We still have articles sitting around that have been tagged as unreferenced for more than four years!  We're among the top five websites and we have the eyes of the world upon us, so it's grossly irresponsible to just sweep it under the rug by adding tags and hope somebody else fixes it someday. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have opened AFDs for two column 1 Masonic suborganization articles, at Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho (whose only reference is Bessel), and Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Kansas (no sources whatsoever). I am aware that "Other Stuff Exists" arguments are insufficient.  It seems relevant, anyhow, to point out that Other Stuff does exist, and I guess worser stuff should be deleted.  The Sons of Haiti organization seems relatively more important, as an example of a column 3 Masonic organization. --doncram (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How thoughtful/pointy of you, Doncram. :-) --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - It occurs to me that the topic of African American Freemasonry (which includes, but is not limited to, Prince Hall Freemasonry) is a notable topic that could be addressed in an article. Even if there isn't enough info about the Sons of Haiti to form a separate article, there's enough info about it to include in an African American Freemasonry article. --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few sources on African American Freemasonry, apparently not limited to Prince Hall:
 * Cincinnati Museum Center page,
 * Corey D. B. Walker. A Noble Fight: African American Freemasonry and the Struggle for Democracy in America, University of Illinois Press. 2008. (Google Books link)
 * New York Masonic Library page about the papers of an author of many articles on the subject.
 * --Orlady (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see a brief mention in such an article, sure. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That could indeed be an interesting article. Let's make sure we have the sources lined up in advance, rather than just cherry-picking here and there...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington). Delete I did find one article that describes the group in more detail than the other articles covering the sale of the building (noting the group's founding--a different year than the article states-- and noting community events they threw, not just events that happened to be at the building) but this added to the more trivial mentions falls short of WP:GNG (or WP:ORG), I think. But since the group has been covered entirely for the activities at and related to the building, that would seem an appropriate redirect target as a related term or subtopic per WP:REDIRECT. The building was, after all, the lodge's lodge. Novaseminary (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...the key word there being "was". Since they still exist, and apparently have lodges in other states, that would definitely be the wrong location for a redirect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm changing my !vote to delete. Though we don't know it from RSs, having multiple chapters, etc., would make this redirect misleading. If more coverage comes along in the future (or we missed some past), it can always be recreated with the sources added. Novaseminary (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1962 founding date currently in the article can be correct and still consistent with the comment in the SeattlePI.Com article, that "The Sons of Haiti formed in the 1950s. Most fraternal organizations wouldn't admit African Americans, Adams said, so the group -- which did charitable deeds such as feeding and housing the poor -- joined an organization based in Haiti, he said." As explained in the source giving 1962 as the formal founding date, the group was for some previous years involved in lawsuits and eventually splitting/replacing other groups.  I think i read that the formal charter from Haiti and i think France were in 1962, another charter from Mexico in the U.S. in 1964.  I happen to think there is enough substance here to make it clear that this is a notable multi-state organization, though I agree more/better sources could/should be found.  The way forward is to leave this as an article, attracting editors eventually who have particular information.  For example there is some 1961 encyclopedia of Freemasonry which is primary source of another article, whose later edition may well cover it.  I do expect there exist good sources on African-Americans in freemasonry, which would cover it. --doncram (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles based on the assumption (or a hope) that sources might exist. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just the founding dates that are iffy. The different sources about Washington Hall give different dates for its sale from the Denmark group to the Sons of Haiti (I think the sale dates that I've seen range from 1958 to 1973). At least with Washington Hall it ought to be possible to figure out which sources are most reliable. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Update Some of the adamant opposition seemed to be about concern that this organization might be a fraud in some way, somehow taking advantage of donors or some vague threat. Some concern was also that this was regarded as "bogus", for not yet being recognized by "mainstream" Masonic bodies. Note all black Masonic bodies were once not recognized; now some but not all mainstream ones recognize Prince Hall black Masonic groups. There remains significant evidence of long-standing racism in Masonic organizations. And, the source used within this article to lambast this organization as being "bogus", seems at the moment to me to have been entirely unfair (and i just removed it). The statement was that "the "Bogus Masonry" project of Prince Hall Freemasonry's Phylaxis Society describes the Sons of Haiti as "bogus" for not having descended from African Lodge Number 459 or the United Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland. I wonder if i am making a mistake, but that source does not appear to deprecate or mention the Sons of Haiti at all(!)  So some anti- type sentiment seems to have been misinformed.

Also, though i am confused by Blueboar's continued opposition to this article, in contrast to his apparent wishes to improve the article by many edits there and at its Talk page, I appreciate Blueboar's acknowledgement at Talk:Sons of Haiti that:"::To try to make this clear... African American Freemasonry has had a long history of schism and re-schism... recognition issues aside, it consists of three broad groups: a) Prince Hall Grand lodges that can show a direct descent from Africa Lodge ... b) Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these 'direct descent' Grand Lodges (some use the name Prince Hall... others have dropped the name) ... c) numerous Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these splinters (or are the splinters of splinters, etc), or were self-created out of whole cloth. There is also a fourth group to be aware of... scams artists who use the good name of Freemasonry to rip off the gullible. The Sons of Haiti seem to fall into the third class. They are a splinter group created when another Prince Hall splinter group had a legal dispute. Hope this helps clarify the situation a bit. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)" Whatever the weird fears of fraud are, here we have an acknowledgment this group is legit, and I believe it is important to show in Wikipedia that black groups within Masonry exist, including Prince Hall ones and also other splinters. B has reiterated at the Talk page that he opposes the article's existence, but the back-and-forth in the article and in its Talk page belies that.  This is a legitimate topic in Wikipedia, IMO. --doncram (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I'm looking right at it.
 * M.W. SONS OF HAITI GRAND LODGE NO. 1, OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
 * Date of Incorporation 12/21/1962
 * Address JOHN R BULLOCK
 * 2015 E YESLER WAY
 * City SEATTLE
 * State WA
 * Zip 98122
 * So, not sure why you think the page doesn't mention it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarek is correct... the Sons of Haiti are the second body listed in the cited source. Its there.
 * As for the rest... I will just let my comments here and on the talk page speak for themselves and not rise to the attempt to bait me into argument. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A small but well attested group with some historical importance in Prince Hall freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not a part of Prince Hall Freemasonry -- see the above debate about the Phylaxis Society. Some historical importance within African-American Freemasonry -- that's possible, but I don't see that it's been demonstrated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't assess the coverage in the sources as significant enough to demonstrate notability. Most of the treatments are incidental.  fwiw I really don't see business directory listings as adequate sources, personally I'd remove them but I'm conscious that would be reverted without any adequate inclusion rationale, so it's not worth it.  There is a reasonable amount of synthesis in the article in an effort to bulk it out and retain under the never mind the quality, look at the width criterion.  ALR (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Followup comment (i voted Keep above): The four "Keep" votes at parallel AFD Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho seem to me to be consistent with Keeping here too.  One vote there is  "Keep: The sheer size and history of state level grand lodges make them notable. Sources are difficult to find because they are often in these old things we used to call books but with a little work they can be easily found. PeRshGo (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)".  ALR just comments without voting, there, too, and states "That said, PershGo makes a valid point that the indiscriminate inclusion of individual GLs reinforces the message that Freemasonry is not some monolithic worldwide entity but is instead a collection of mutually engaged bodies. Whilst it's an interesting argument that message itself is already communicated in other articles and I'm not sure that sheer volume of articles really contributes to it."  I think that Pershgo's message recognized by ALR is an appropriate one for the collection of wikipedia articles to convey, and it is done well by including articles on the less-mutually-recognized bodies such as the Sons of Haiti one.


 * AFAIK from the outside, the Sons of Haiti is a Grand Lodge type organization that seems equivalent to other Grand Lodges, but this one is one that is not yet recognized by predominantly white grand lodges. Note also some/all of the black Prince Hall grand lodges are not recognized by the all-white (per 2008 sources) grand lodge of West Virginia and 9-10 other predominantly white U.S. state lodges, according to Bessell, the recognized as good source relied upon in other Grand Lodge articles.  I think articles on non-"mainstream", i.e. non-all-white / non-predominantly-white Masonic organizations are needed to provide balance.  There do exist self-published sources by all of these organizations, including Sons of Haiti, that are accepted for the other ones, the white ones. --doncram (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Individual AfD discussions are independent of one another and I would suggest that it's wholly inappropriate to try to export an individuals comments from one discussion to another. Your understanding of my position with respect to these articles is somewhat flawed.
 * ALR (talk) 20:54, 14 October 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.