Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracing board


 * 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. per the citations added. The discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracing board

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

Citations needed since Dec. 2007, and possible copyvio. I went in to try and source things based on what was listed in "Notes" and discovered the "sources" were simply copied from a citation in one of the external links. As far as I can tell, this article was originally created by someone trying to advertise his own work and research, and when that was taken out, there was very little left, and no indication that it is not a direct lift of that work (which was stated to exist but that I cannot locate), with no documented assertion of release into PD. MSJapan (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability not established (see my comment below). Some of the material can probably be merged into Freemasonry. Otherwise, I agree that the article does not fully comply with policy . Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason why any of these problems require deletion of the article. The topic is good, the rest is fixable. Far too many editors prefer the easy route to AfD something rather than to actually write content! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is hard to write and expand an article when there is a dirth of reliable sources upon which to build it. This is the case here.  About all that can be said without getting into OR is already in the article, and that is essentially a repeat of what is in the main Freemasonry article. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge as highlighted above. In the absence of significant credible sourcing I think that makes more sense now.  If it grows enough then break it out later.ALR (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Blueboar and ALR said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject, there's no reason why this should be deleted. JASpencer (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, I am not sure that JASpencer is correct in stating that this is a notable subject... I think we need to distinguish between a "facinating" subject and a "notable" subject here... This is certainly a "facinating" topic, but I don't see much to indicate that the topic is "notable" by Wikipedia's guidelines... any notability relies on the topic's connection to Freemasonry. Freemasonry is certainly notable, but I question whether it has been established that masonic tracing boards are notable on their own. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep People may come here looking for this information --Jack1956 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is not a valid reason to Keep... people may come to Wikipedia to find information on all sorts of stuff. If we can not verify information through reference to reliable sources (and looking at the number of unsourced statements in this article, I have to question whether we can), and if we can not substantiate that the topic is notable through citation to reliable independant sources (see WP:NOTE), then we should not have an article about the topic. Has no one outside of Freemasonry discussed this topic?Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations now supplied. It just needed a bit of effort --Jack1956 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two pages is not strong support for the notability of the item in question, nor does it adequately address the need for sources. MSJapan (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The references were not put in to demonstrate notability, just to address the citation issue, which seemed to be a problem. --Jack1956 (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep subject seems notable enough to me. --Dreamspy (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Zef (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would probably help if people explain why they feel this topic is notable? Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Why notable?
 * It relates to a broad topic, Freemasonry, that's notable.
 * It's part of the equipment of Freemasonry, a broad topic in its own right. Is there any other religious / non-religious practice that requires so much stuff?
 * Its own existence seems undisputed.
 * I don't see this as a WP:N issue so much as WP:RS & WP:V. I'm convinced they're notable already (from outside knowledge), the task now is to demonstrate this. That's just improvement territory. not AfD. Surely someone can cite refs as needed without getting their tongue torn out by the root? There is no dearth of good source material for Freemasonry. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Freemasonry in general, yes. Particular subtopics, not necessarily.  Many times we know what something is, but that is all.  For example, we have an article on Lodge Officers.  We know they exist, but we don't know where the actual titles came from other than that someone made them up one day.  Same problem here; we all may have seen Tracing Boards, but we don't necessarily use them, nor do we know what they are for as a result unless one has a specialized interest in them.  The sources that are in the article are about all that there is for RS and V; the article was originally created as a self-promo vehicle, which invalidated the majority of it.  MSJapan (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the Tracing Boards are an important part of Masonic ritual and are therefore notable. They are notable also because they form an important element in the history of Masonic ritual and Freemasonry itself. Can the detractors suggest fully why they are not notable enough to be here? --Jack1956 (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In responce to both Andy and Jack...I agree that Freemasonry is notable ... but would do not agree that everything and anything associated with Freemasonry is notable. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what tracing boards are.  They have never been part of the "equipment" of Freemasonry, they are not part of the ritual, and they have never been required.  Essentially tracing boards were the 19th centrury equivalent of a power point presentation. They were a teaching aid... a pictorial representation of what was being talked about. Many lodges have never owned or used one.  Finally... Jack, the way Wikipedia works, it is up to those who write articles to establish why the topic is notable, not the other way around. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Notability is not inherited. Article must show why it is independently notable and not in relation to its parent topics. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for that, Blueboar. I think I understand the concept of what is notable by Wiki standards. That was what is confusing me...why one or two editors think the article is not notable while the majority seem to think it is. Thought I was missing the point. --Jack1956 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there tends to be a general perception that anything related to Freemasonry is notable, generally because of the association. I think it's now getting to the stage that anything MSJ raises for deletion tends to end up retained by default, particularly when certain editors tend to immediately start attacking the intent of the proposal, rather than the nomination itself.
 * In this instance I do think the topic is worth discussing, but I don't believe there is enough substance to meaningfully talk about it in isolation like this.
 * ALR has it right... I have made the distinction between a facinating topic and a notable topic in other AfDs... this is another example. Tracing boards are indeed a facinating topic, especially for non-Masons.  They depict what to most people are "mysterious" and "secret" emblems, and it is natural that people want to know more about them.  But I don't think the topic is Notable as Wikipeida defines that word.  We do not have reliable independant sources that discuss the topic, and we have very few reliable Masonic sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ALR (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Only one vote per person. However, th question is valid, so why are they not notable enough?  Largely because there isn't enough coverage.  The article has sat since December '07 with no sources.  WP:N states: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic".  What is available is a few research papers and a whole lot of pictures.  The coverage simply isn't there to present an appropriate article without lifting heavily from those one or two sources, which drifts into potential copyvio depending on how it is done.  Yeah, everybody who has been in a Lodge has probably seen one, but that doesn't mean that all of them know anything about them (or that the viewer know what it was when it was seen), and it's likely no one outside of a Lodge has ever seen one.  Fundamentally, it's Masonic folk art, and the article on folk art is pretty bad too, which indicates a fundamental encyclopedic problem with the area.  There's also not "an important part of ritual" - their use is entirely up to the Lodge, and not all jurisdictions use them. MSJapan (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Having read the comments from Blueboar and MSJ I would support a Merge into Freemasonry so long as it is merged in its entirety or as close as dammit. --Jack1956 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that most of the material was copied from the Freemasonry article in the first place, that should not be a problem. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not Merge with Masonic ritual and symbolism ?
 * :D ! Lunarian (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's not part of ritual (as noted above), and is not itself a symbol. MSJapan (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: that article has been redirected to the main Freemasony article per its own AfD consensus.
 * Actually, I think the consensus is to keep. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority view in the AfD for the ritual and symbolism fork was to merge, which has been done, essentially by redirecting as it had no content that wasn't already in the main Freemasonry article. I'd agree that the majority opinion here appears to be tending towards keep.
 * ALR (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It was redirected by the nominator despite the result being "no consensus" which is a variant of keep.  JASpencer (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority were merge or redirect, since consensus in binary decision making is a fallacy I can understand why MSJ took the action he did, equally I was counting the minutes until the whining started.
 * ALR (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry ALR, I won't hold that outburst against you and will accept a genuine apology because I know that you would normally keep to WP:CIVIL. JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe that was a specific comment, rather than a general observation, that's entirely up to you.ALR (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per added citations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are sources, it's verifiable, and such a board appears to be as important in some lodges as, say, a thurible in some churches. So what's the problem?   SIS   22:38, 30 September 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.