Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn — reliable sources have been found to prove the subject's notability. Non-admin closure.  Jamie ☆ S93  03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:ORG - for two reasons: local chapters of international organizations are not considered notable, and notability is not established through reference reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject (the source is primarily sourced to the lodge's website. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Local chapters are not notable in themselves, but they can prove notability (see Articles for deletion/New Welcome Lodge as an example of one of these).  The lodge claims to be the oldest operating Masonic lodge in the Americas, and it clearly is important in the early history of New Hampshire.  There are five sources of which one is the lodge and one is the grand lodge.  The other three are independent of the source. JASpencer (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the lodge's website itself admits that there were several lodges that were older than it is (by several years)... so the claim of being the oldest in the Americas is mistating the facts. I also know that there are several lodges that claim to be older (will find sources if needed).  As for the other "independant" sources... the are sort of independant (being other masonic sites)... but they are not used to substantiate the notability of the lodge itself... they are used to substantiate that a few notable people were members. Notability is not inherited.  Many lodges have a few notable members on their rolls... especially the ones that date to the revolutionary era... that does not make the lodge itself notable.


 * "St. John's is proud to be the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in the United States, and indeed the Americas". They do claim to be the largest continuous lodge.  I may have confused you by using the term operative. JASpencer (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Claim" is the operative word here... my point is that this is a claim that is disputed. For us to say that age makes this lodge an exception to the "local chapters are not notable" rule, we need more than the lodge's say so. We need independant sources.  And as it turns out, the independant source disagree... According to Mark Talbert's "American Freemasons" (p.34), the oldest lodge in continual opperation in the Americas is Solomon's Lodge in Savanah, Georgia (founded 1734, two years before St. John's in New Hampshire.)  So much for the "claim". Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dangerous ground suggesting that your use of terminology may have been misunderstood, the claim to be the oldest operative lodge is probably less significant than oldest lodge as the Operatives are quite a small body. In the US I think it's operated under another body anyway.
 * ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - So then, by extension, is the claim to be the the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in New Hampshire sufficient? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is I'll start drafting an article on the oldest surviving lodge in Little Snoring in the Mist... ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as your sources are Ref's are as good as thoes in this Article, go ahead. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No clear assertion of notability, merely still surviving doesn't really cut it, also agree Blueboars point about independent sourcing.ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Claim as oldest freemason lodge in continuous operation (or even if it's "only" second-oldest) is a rather strong claim of notability, backed up be reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For all we know, the claim could be completely bogus... There is a common issue with old lodges in the US: a lot of them claim 'continual existance' when in fact they had an interuption. A huge number of Masonic lodges closed their doors in the 1820s as a reuslt of the Morgan Affair (Freemaonry almost died out in the US). As Freemasonry began to grow again in the 1840s, some of these lodges were revived.  It was common for Grand Lodges to declare that these revived lodges had been in 'continuous opperation', even though the reality was that they closed and were essentially recreated. I don't know if this is the case with St. John's in Portland or not... but it is a possibility we need to consider.  To know for sure, we need reliable independant sources.  And that is the problem... we don't have any independant sources... all we have is the lodge's website. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and comment - It's at least third oldest. Just south of the border, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts chartered St. John's Lodge in Boston four minutes after its own creation in 1733, and Philadelphia in turn claims it had independent lodges meeting earlier than that.  "Who's oldest" is really not a good platform to base an article on - if a lodge is notable, it's notable for a lot more than just its age.  Almost every Lodge has something unique to itself, but that does not in turn make the Lodge notable. MSJapan (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The claim to be the oldest lodge in continuous use is important but we are not taking much account of the seemingly important role it played in NH history, particularly during the revolutionary period. JASpencer (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There seem to be a lot of notable members, and that should be enough. It also has proper referencing, and it would be a shame to delete such a useful page. 7 References, notable members, and the rest, is a clear acknowledgment of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Having notable members does not make an organization notable itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being in multiple references while having a notable membership does. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No... Notability is not inherited no matter how many famous people are involved. I also note that the bulk of the list of members is cited to the lodge's webpage itself.  Again, we have not solved the basic problem ... the claims to notability are not suported by reliable sources that are independant of the subject.  That phrase is at the heart of WP:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said notability was inherited. I stated that it is using reliable sources which is clear from the reference section. I also stated that this page is further connected to many notable people, which shows that there is more out there that can be added in. It doesn't matter where a "bulk" of the information comes from, as the organization guidelines say that only a few independent sources need to prove notability where other information can then come from the primary source. This page has done just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Guest, are you saying that this "Freemasonry in the Thirteen Colonies, by J. Hugo Tatsch Republished by Kessinger Publishing, 1995, ISBN 1564595951, ISBN 9781564595959" is not a reliable source? It is from the page. Are you saying that this " A Sturdy Oak of New England Life, The Granite Monthly, October 1903, Volume XXXV - Number 4" is also not one? You only need one third party reliable source if you want to get technical about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources directly dealing with the lodge can be found and used to back up (or otherwise) the claims made by the article and the lodge's website. If not then there is no verifiable information about the lodge apart from a list of members that could be used to write an article. Guest9999 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Change to Keep reliable sourcing added to support claims in article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had the page open from yesterday before the sources had been added and obviously forgot to refresh it, good job finding the sources, I've amended my view accordingly. Guest9999 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added in another source and expanded. How does it look now? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point the sourcing looks good too me (see amended comment above), although I have no expertise on literature relating to the subject matter. The article's definitely in a much better state then it was when this discussion started which can only be a good thing. Guest9999 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, it is in far better shape, but the article was nominated within 51 minutes of it being started.  A notability tag and a civil discussion would have got the same result. JASpencer (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that a closing admin would have taken that into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just like to suggest that another way the situation could be avoided in the future would be to get the article up to scratch - with sources included - on a user space subpage before moving it into mainspace. Guest9999 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn. The article is indeed now sourced enough to pass WP:ORG. I have to agree with Guest9999... drafting this article in user space (including finding citations) and then moving it to article space would have been a better way to proceed. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - well referenced, notable members list helps (this would equal alumni if it were a school). Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the new sources and withdraw of the nominator. I would have closed it myself but there are several non withdrawn "delete" arguments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 7 October 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.