Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Masonic Temple


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Masonic Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet GNG, and notability has not been established; in 2.5 years there has been no substantial content to address anything more than existence (which is not notability). The article as it stands is so minimal as to be a dicdef. MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The nom has simply given article improvement issues, not actual notability ones. Historic building in Colombo and arguably the most significant Masonic Temple in all of Sri Lanka.  The Sunday Times did a very extensive article on this building .  (This signifying passing WP:GNG was already in the article when the nom AfD'd this.)   A guide book from 1906 devoted a section to it.   It's even on one of the Sri Lankan stamps.  Topic on national stamp=notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did read the material before I nominated it, and I do not appreciate the insinuation otherwise. If you read the article, on the other hand, you would see that it's not really very "extensive" at all; several paragraphs are opinions of the author, not facts about the building.  The guidebook is a tertiary source, which does not replace a secondary, and there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia's notability guidelines that equates being on a stamp with notability.  So, you've got one source, and GNG is not met by one source. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You made zero reference to the The Sunday Times article in your nom statement which was a glaring omission for your case of "Does not meet GNG" so it appears you didn't read (or perhaps notice) it. The Sunday Times is an in-depth coverage on the temple.  WP:GNG does not prejudice against opinion coverage, whether it be reviews, criticisms or op-ed peices.  The Sunday Times article could be entitled "VICTORIA MASONIC TEMPLE SUCKS AND HERE'S WHY" and it would still be considered significant coverage per WP:GNG.  As for the book A Guide to Colombo, you claim it's tertiary source?  Do you have any evidence the book was published by the temple or even any part of the Masonic Order, or is this attack on the source your original research?  --Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't have to make reference to sources in a nomination, only the lack thereof, which I did. I also never claimed the article was unsourced; I claimed it did not meet GNG. WP:GNG reads If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.  Note the plural sources; not "if some guy wrote about it once."  Therefore, my nomination indicates that there are not enough sources to make this building notable.  An almanac, guidebook, or encyclopedia is by definition a tertiary source, and they are not the same as SPS.  Also, that guidebook has three sentences about the building; the book itself is over 150 pages long.  Sounds like a trivial mention to me. MSJapan (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You admit now you made reference to "lack theorof" reliable sources when there was one already in the article. Bad AfD form.  "Tertiary" is a broad term (uh, Encyclopedias not secondary sources?), but you claimed specifically the guide book from 1906 is not a secondary source.  Again, do you have any evidence the book was published by the temple or even any part of the Masonic Order or is that your blind speculation?  We're waiting. --Oakshade (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete One reliable source just doesn't seem like enough to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Oakshade says, the sources provided + national stamp = notable landmark building. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, a stamp does not confer notability. I want to see that guiideline if it does. Secondly, a notable landmark building is one that is on a list of other such recognized buildings.  There's paperwork and other things involved. It's not because somebody said so.
 * Although a stamp is not "coverage" the fact that a stamp is issued with a building bang in the middle of the stamp means that it is common sense that the building is notable. JASpencer (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Per Oakshade.Pectoretalk 03:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. More RS available, . Cossde (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - one is about a blood drive and the other about a fundraiser to be held on the grounds. There's no content about the building.  It's pertinent because it mentions the name of the building once?  Sorry, that's also trivial coverage. MSJapan (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per RS in article and this one I just added: Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon:Its History, People, Commerce, Industries, and Resources. There's description of the construction and opening on pages 419-420 and a nice public domain photograph on page 414. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As well as the reliable sources that have now been shown, we also have the building on a stamp. If it makes it on to a stamp or a banknote then it's probably notable.  JASpencer (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Week Keep... I would have said delete, but the coverage in "Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon" is more than just trivial. That said... while there is enough coverage (barely) to establish notability, there really isn't enough coverage to allow the article to grow beyond a stub.  The article really should be merged into an article on a broader topic (something like Colonial era architecture in Ceylon)... there are probably other articles that could be merged as well. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2013 (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.