Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Eagle 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   no consensus. On a personal note, I'm not entirely convinced by those sources: #1 is by somebody connected to the organization (thus not independent), while #3 is an encyclopedia that may strive to be comprehensive (thus not an indicator of notability). Further sources are probably needed to avoid a renomination in a couple of months. Shi meru  03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The White Eagle Lodge

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could not find any reliable source to esablish notability.  Fails WP:ORG.  Movementarian (Talk) 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only results in a books search are from people involved within the "movement". Can't establish notability based on the web searches I'm finding; they're all written by people connected to it. The best 3rd party coverage I can find is newspaper article from 21 years ago: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rL8LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cVYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7170,394598&dq=white-eagle-lodge&hl=en (This was on my list of "stuff to AfD when I got around to it, so thanks for taking the initiative.) Vertigo Acid (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This organization appears to exist in the real world and runs events and places of worship; I agree that there is not much unbiased material online about it; but while such material may not be a reliable source for matters of opinion about the organization, it does suffice to prove that it exists and has adherents.Ed Avis (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC).
 * The fact that it exists is not a reason for it to have a Wikipedia page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is challenging it on verifiability grounds Vertigo Acid (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article probably needs a thorough going through as it does read more like an advert for the organisation rather than an encyclopedia article. However, coverage in books about spiritualism would indicate it is notable.  See, , , , and  is just a sample from the book results I found.  - Whpq (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources listed by Whpq appear to establish that this meets WP:GNG.-- Pink Bull  22:28, 17 June 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.