Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic buildings

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 whatsoever. Certain comments here seem to have been made in the mistaken belief that individual items on a list must be notable. I was personally most persuaded by Mark Kupper's short but well-reasoned thought, but viewed objectively, there is no consensus on what to do with this list. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 07:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

List of Masonic buildings

List of Masonic buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is overly duplicative with Masonic Temple, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), Category:Masonic buildings and several other pages that contain essentially the exact same information. No citations are given to substantiate inclusion. There is no clear criteria for inclusion. No citations are given to substantiate notability of the topic. List largely consists of red-links (and has since the last large expansion in 2008). Blueboar (talk)

  • Additional Comments and Explanation - Because most of the buildings listed here are on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), there is some grounds for saying that they are individually notable... however that does not answer the question of whether they are notable as a grouping. I would contend that few of these buildings are notable for being "Masonic". This is analogous to creating a list of "Americans with blue eyes"... the people listed may be notable for other reasons, but they are not notable for having blue eyes. Notability must be established within the context of the article topic. This problem is compounded by the fact that the criteria for inclusion is unclear and overly broad. There is no clear definition of what a "Masonic building" actually is (attempts to answer that question have been made on the talk page, with no consensus reached). Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is duplicative to discussion on mergers/moves already ongoing at Requested Move discussion at Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2, where community input is already asked for, about two competing comprehensive proposals. This AFD should be closed administratively IMO.
Blueboar's actions to abruptly make moves and initiate duplicative proposals has been very confusing in a series of related articles and disambiguation pages. Hmm, to add to that confusion now i see that Blueboar, not waiting for a consensus, has declared the Requested move 2 discussion over by his or someone else implementing one move under discussion. Since there was not consensus, I don't believe that ends the discussion. I object to opening new discussion elsewhere for much of the same stuff to be repeated. I reiterate this AFD should simply be closed as premature / duplicative. --doncram (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Doncram - As to my actions... At lest one of the page moves that you now complain about was performed by an admin (admittedly at my prompting) in direct response to a page move request that you made (see: Talk:Masonic Temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2), and I had nothing to do with the other.
As to whether this AfD nomination is premature... This article has been prodded twice, so this is nothing new. The two of us have been arguing about the very issues I raise here for more than a month, with no movement towards resolution or consensus. The underlying issue of whether to keep or delete this list article must be settled before we can move forward on on resolving our issues with other articles (and that answer will help to determine how we do so). Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting new editors to consider this AFD proposal, separate from the naming / merging / split / other proposals all under discussion at the central discussion, would not be helpful. It is best to return to the central discussion, which was created to combine multiple separate discussions previously, rather than splitting the discussion yet again. I'll comment about this AFD proposal there, now. Please discuss there. --doncram (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is always an option to be considered at AfD. And you are free to propose a merger as an alternative to deletion. In this case, I don't believe merging is a viable option, because it simply moves the problems I outline above to a different page without resolving them. Without a clear inclusion criteria for what a "Masonic building" is, and without a clear indication of what makes a "Masonic building" notable, it does not really matter where we put the list. The problem is with the list itself... not the location where we find it. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are already merger proposals under discussion, in a central discussion. I explain there why i feel your proposal here is a false proposal, too. Please discuss in the central discussion. --doncram (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there has been an attempt at centralized discussion... in which I have repeatedly expressed the opinion that this list article should be deleted (giving the same reasons as I express here) while you have repeatedly expressed your opinion that it should be kept (without really addressing why) ... we are at a deadlock at that discussion. Which of the various merger proposals is adopted depends on whether this list article is deleted or not. It is time to end the deadlock and see what the greater community thinks. You don't have to like the fact that I have nominated this for deletion, but now that I have, please deal with it and express your reasons why you think this list article should be kept. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you know i already stated those reasons in the centralized discussion, including why an AFD would fail and also why i think this is a false proposal. Please read what is written there, and answer clarifying questions there if you have any. It does not help get consensus in the centralized discussion -- already discussing this very question -- to split the discussion. Are you forum-shopping (is that wp:forumshop?), trying to railroad through a different decision, going around a consensus process already underway somewhere else? --doncram (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As others joined the AFD below, i am forced to concede the AFD is happening. I certainly oppose, and state that below. --doncram (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I agree that this is already covered in the two other articles cited by the nominator, and I can't figure out why we need three such lists. The entire Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page seems to have been created out of a serious misunderstanding of what a disambiguation page is supposed to be. It's as if I wandered into town and asked, "Say, where's the Masonic temple?" and the reply was, "Oh, do you mean the one in Fairbanks, or the one in El Dorado, or the one in Pine Bluff, or the one in Kingman, or...". I can see where this would be a legitimate spinoff of the article Masonic Temple, however. As for the category, keep that one, some people prefer to look for their information by way of categories and should have the right to do so WP:CLN. I'm sure that someone will say, "We don't need a list, we have a category", which to me is like saying, "You don't need to have a Masonic Temple, you can meet at the community center". Mandsford 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Masons don't need a Masonic Temple... and often do meet at the community center.
More likely the Anytown Community Center used to be the Masonic Temple, until the local lodge closed and the Masons sold it to the town. However it is listed in the National Registry of Historic Places under the name "Masonic Temple"... which means it is listed at Masonic Temple (disambiguation) and at List of Masonic buildings as a red linked "potential" article... only it is unlikely that anyone will ever actually write that article because the building is currently named the "Anytown Community Center".
Or maybe the community center is a notable example of beaux arts architecture built in 1910 and has a Wikipedia article because of that... but because the Masons happen to have purchased the building in 1998 and currently meet there someone says it qualifies to be listed at List of Masonic buildings.
See how complicated this gets without clear definitions of what makes a building a "Masonic building", and what makes a particular "Masonic building" notable? Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mandsford for your reasonable !vote despite your misgivings about the dab page you mention. FYI, the dab page is unusual for including many red-link items but it fully meets Wikipedia guideline/policy at wp:MOSDAB, with a supporting bluelink establishing notability for every entry that is a primary red-link. No one asserts that every Masonic meetingplace is notable. The dab page covers ones known to be wikipedia-notable by their being NRHP-listed or otherwise. --doncram (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have tried to follow the convoluted and contentious discussion about disambiguation pages for Masonic buildings, but I have not weighed in there because I didn't have a strong opinion. Looking once again at this list, Category:Masonic buildings, and the various disambiguation pages, I am overwhelmed by the impression that this list article is an indiscriminate and impossible-to-maintain list of a tiny fraction of the world's masonic buildings -- a nonnotable collection that has no inherent encyclopedic value. There might be some merit in retaining pages like Masonic Temple (disambiguation) and Scottish Rite Cathedral that are currently configured as disambiguation pages, but it seems to me that they should be repurposed as set-index articles -- the similarity of name is not a matter of needing disambiguation so much as the fact that there are a lot of "Masonic Temples" in the world, some of which have articles. This topic is, however, an appropriate one for a category -- and the necessary category exists. --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 4 Virginia ones now that i have developed that section a bit (with sources): one "Lodge", one "Temple", one "Hall", one "Memorial"? All 4 seem highly significant. There are presumably many other Masonic meetingplaces in Virginia but none that are non-notable have been added. There seems to be no problem with indiscriminate additions and there should be no problem maintaining this, as far as i can see. The appropriateness of having overlap between complementary list-article and category has been pointed out by others elsewhere now, and is covered in wp:PURPLIST and wp:CLN. --doncram (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that individual elements of a list are notable does not make the list notable. As WP:NOTDIR states, Wikipedia does not publish "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" and lists should not be created based on "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" (such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y"). Regarding cross-categories, that policy states: "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." I have not yet seen any sources that indicate that being a building that is notable for some reason or other AND being somehow associated with Freemasonry represents a notable (or culturally significant) intersection. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the buildings were built by the freemasons. They would not exist were it not for the freemasons. Categorizing a group of buildings by the organization which is directly responsible for their existence is not a "loose association" nor is it a "non-encyclopedic cross categorization". Under your logic, List of churches in London would also be a loose association or a non-encyclopedic cross categorization. After all, it's just a list article about notable buildings which were built by a particular organization. SnottyWong talk 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you are saying that the scope of this list is "buildings built by Freemasons"? That's not an inclusion criterion that I've ever seen documented in the article, but documenting it here would be a first step towards adding it to the article.
I think you are also saying that being built by Freemasons is a notable association for a building because the building would not exist if it weren't for Freemasonry. I'm afraid you've lost me there -- not only does that not impress me as a culturally significant association that merits creation of a list (are you also going to propose a list of buildings built using bank-financed loans? -- those are buildings that would not exist if not for banks), but I'm having trouble imagining where a person would look for substantial published content to show that this association meets the WP:GNG.
PS: Does this new inclusion criterion of yours still exclude buildings built by Shriners, Scottish Rite, and other Masonic groups that do not explicitly include the word "Mason" in the names of their buildings? --Orlady (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the list entries indicates that the existing entries were NOT all built by Freemasons. I checked only the first 8 blue-linked entries on the list, and found 3 that weren't built by Masons and one whose article does not describe the building's Masonic connection. The ones not built by Masons include the first entry on the list (State House, Bermuda), The Cloisters (Letchworth) and Masonic Temple (Kingman, Arizona). As for the one whose Masonic connection is unclear, I think it's likely that Masonic Temple (Toronto) was built by Freemasons, but the article about it doesn't say anything about its Masonic connection. Half the buildings I looked at were built by Freemasons, though. --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Orlady: What about List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, to which i notice mention at your talk-page, and then see you have contributed to over some time (before and since it was renamed in October 2009). Orlady, i think your contributions there appear good, and i certainly won't initiate an AFD about it. It is clearly amusing, well-written, useful in a weird way (though not as a navigational aid, unlike this list of masonic buildings), and well-supported in each of its individual items. And it appears to be exactly the kind of collection of individual instances, individually supported that your comments suggest you would strongly oppose. I don't want to comment further about this as it is a tangent, but could you provide a comment briefly why you support one and not the other? Maybe i am just wrong that there is not good documentation of that list topic, as a topic, already published. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you brought it up, that "fraudulent diplomas" list-article was the subject of an AfD that we might as well look at now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cats with fraudulent diplomas. That AfD resulted in a snowball "keep" (something that is not real likely to happen with the present AfD). (My own "Keep" comment in that AfD focused on the fact that a frivolous-sounding renaming of the article, and not its content, was what had led to its AfD nomination.) An important reason for the "keep" is that the phenomenon of cats and dogs receiving fraudulent diplomas is a culturally significant phenomenon -- there are several incidents of people applying to suspected diploma mills on behalf of their pets in order to expose the fraudulent nature of the institution. Most of these cases were widely reported in news media, and in at least one case, the fraudulent diploma helped lead to a successful prosecution of the institution. Furthermore, note that these cats and dogs do not have their own separate articles; they are covered only in this list (and sometimes also in articles about the institutions they helped to expose). List of animals with fraudulent diplomas is a list "created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles", as discussed in the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
In contrast, many of the buildings on the Masonic buildings have their own articles, which are not being proposed for deletion. The issue is whether or not there is something culturally significant about the intersection of "building" and "Masonic" that needs to be documented in a list, in addition to stand-along articles about individual buildings. I have not seen evidence that there is any particular cultural significance to that intersection. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know you are aware that there are numerous Masonic buildings that are not called "Masonic Temple", but many of these pages have focused mostly on similarity of name. Have you thought about how to cover the various "Masonic halls", "Scottish Rite temples", and other names that are fundamentally equivalent to the entities called "Masonic temple," but happen to have a different name? --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Orlady's points, The problem I see with Marc's merger proposal is that we would still have the problem of defining what makes a particular Masonic Temple note worthy (and I use the term deliberately to distinguish from WP:Notable) enough to be mentioned? Is the criteria that the building is an example of a particular type or style of Masonic Temple? Is it because it has historic value to the fraternity (being, for example, the oldest Masonic meeting place in a particular state)? Is it because of its size and impressiveness? In other words... what makes a Masonic Building/Temple/Hall/Center/whatever note worthy (or for that matter, WP:notable) within the context of the article? Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I had not paid attention to the names of the buildings. Sometimes the buildings are called temples, halls, centers, etc. The Scottish Rite temples are different and I believe are covered at Scottish Rite Cathedral. Blueboar, I believe I answered your concerns at Talk:Masonic Temple#Notable Masonic Temples. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Scottish Rite is not a Masonic group? Or that the buildings it built and/or uses are not Masonic buildings? (There seems to be no end to the mysteries surrounding Freemasonry...) --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The indications (both here and in the article) that the list includes buildings used by some Masonic orders but not others only supports my general impression that the organizing principle for the list (i.e., being a building and being somehow associated with Freemasonry, or some elements of Freemasonry) is not notable. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not a fan of list articles, categorising and indexing of articles is more usefully carried out using categories and navigation templates. There is no clear inclusion policy and the number of red links suggests that few of the buildings listed are inherently notable in their own right. ALR (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, don't be a fan of list-articles, but as has been explained, and is covered in wp:PURPLIST and wp:CLN, list-articles are complementary to other navigation approaches. I fixed some of the red-links by creating articles, and it turns out they are eminently notable. How is the List of Masonic buildings#section on Virginia, as now developed, for example? The presence of other red-links is an indication only that the article is not complete. I believe the red-links are all NRHP-listed places like 3 of the 4 in Virginia. --doncram (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to try to browbeat me into agreeing with you is increasingly tedious. I don't believe that you've made a case for notability of either the individual buildings or the list article itself, but I recognise that your focus is on creating list articles that reflect the content of this register of places. You've been invited to demonstrate the the topic and the individual buildings are notable, and you have thus far continued to bang on about them being notable because they're notable. I do not accept your assertion, however the outcome of this will be the will of the majority. Learn to live with that.
ALR (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that by my direct reply to your !vote here, and otherwise, that i seem to you to be browbeating. I do apologize. About the case for notability of individual buildings, at least, i thought i was addressing that by what i developed in the 3 Virginia articles that i created and linked in, and called your attention to. Again, sorry for the appearance of too-direct commenting back. --doncram (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just to be clear what is my view: the list-article should be kept. It is easy to document with reliable references that each of many items in the list have significant Masonic association. As Colonel Warden notes, the deletion nominator's complaints can easily be addressed by normal editing processes. The fact of overlap between the list and a category is completely normal for list articles and corresponding categories; they're different tho, which the deletion nominator has refused to understand. The fact of overlap between disambiguation pages and a list article is also unremarkable; dab pages are different too and cannot hold pictures and descriptions and other development. The AFD, given extensive discussion elsewhere, seems unhelpful. Note, at WikiProject Freemasonry, there's a different editor stirring along with interest to develop the list-article. --doncram (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum to nomination remarks - this is spiraling out of control... now an editor has created yet another duplicative version of the list... at List of Masonic Temples. We now have no less than five iterations of essentially the same list. None of which establish what makes the underlying topic notable in the first place... although that is not required for two of them (the dab page and the category). Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Time to address the elephant in the room. The underlying issue here is simple... is the concept of a "Masonic building" notable? (or to put it another way, is the topic notable?) I think we are all assuming it is, but the article currently does not establish any notability through reference to reliable sources. Which leads to a second question... are their reliable sources that discuss the topic of Masonic buildings? Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to puncture your pachyderm: Yes - of course. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator has nominated the wrong article for deletion, in my opinion. This article is a list of notable buildings, and a navigational aid. Instead, I would encourage the nominator to delete the entire "Notable Masonic Temples" section at Masonic Temple and provide a "See Also" link to this list article instead. Also, I would encourage the nominator to nominate Masonic Temple (disambiguation) for deletion, as it is completely unnecessary and does not function as a disambiguation page. SnottyWong talk 19:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the buildings on the list are all notable... individually ... that is not the question... the question is are they notable as a specific group. Is the grouping notable. The vast majority of them are notable for reasons other than for being a Masonic building. Most are notable for being historic buildings (and I have no problem listing them in a List of historic buildings). No, the title implies that they are notable because they are "Masonic" buildings, but I don't think that is true for most of them. Heck, under Snottywong's reasoning, I could argue that Buckingham Palace (certainly a notable building) belongs on the list (not only were lodge meetings held in the Palace historically, but I believe a Lodge currently meets in the building, which is more than we can say for many of the buildings that are on the list). I don't argue to include Buckingham Palace... because the building is not notable for being Masonic. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find reliable sources which confirm that freemasons meet (or have met) at Buckingham Palace, then I think there is an argument that it should be added to the list. If there are specific unsourced items in this list that you don't think have any connection to freemasons, then feel free to challenge them individually. I see your point that the inclusion criteria for the list isn't crystal clear, but I don't think that means the article should be deleted, it just means that the inclusion criteria should be defined. In my opinion, the inclusion criteria should either be "any notable building that has hosted freemason meetings for a significant period of time" or "any notable building which was originally built by the freemasons, or specifically for the purpose of hosting freemason meetings". Either of these would work, although the latter is more conservative and restrictive (and better, in my opinion). The former is a borderline non-encylopedic cross-categorization (i.e., it's equivalent to List of buildings in which Freemasons have held meetings). SnottyWong talk 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I could live with a definition of "A building originally built for the purpose of holding Masonic meetings, and still used for that purpose" (or at least not modified to the point where it could no longer perform its original purpose)... unfortunately it does not resolve the most important issue... We need to establish that Masonic buildings are notable as a class. WP:NOTE requires that we establish that the topic is notable. So I will repeat the question I asked earlier... are there any reliable sources that discuss the topic of Masonic buildings? If not, then we should delete this list. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked? I found these in about 90 seconds: [1][2][3][4]. I think AfD was the wrong venue for this discussion. I think what you really should do is request a move of this page to List of Masonic temples with the intention of clarifying the inclusion criteria. Once the move is complete, you can cull any buildings which don't meet the inclusion criteria. I don't see this article getting deleted in its current state though. SnottyWong talk 01:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources you found aren't really credible to establishing notability. The 1st is EB stating where the term appears in the EB, and it doesn't occur as a title for an entry therein. #2 is a Google search where maybe 20 pages of the whole are even on the subject. #3 and #4 are not really on the money either. So, I don't see topical notability established. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on "not on the money"? Link #3 is to a book entitled Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes. How much more "on the money" can you get? Let's get real. Masonic buildings are usually large, architecturally unique, landmark buildings in large cities around the world. They are almost always notable. There are books written on the subject. The buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm a self-admitted deletionist and I can't see any way to argue that Masonic buildings are not notable. SnottyWong talk 04:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make assumptions, Snottiywong... you state that "Masonic buildings are usually large, architecturally unique, landmark buildings in large cities around the world."... This simply isn't the case at all... While some fit this description (especially those buildings that were built to house the various Grand Lodges), the vast majority of Masonic buildings (and the majority of those on the list) are architecturally non-notable, and are located small towns and cities. To give you a good sampling... while the Masonic Temple (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and Masonic Temple (Chicago, Illinois) certainly fit your description ... compare them to Masonic Temple (Gainesville, Florida), AF and AM Lodge 687, Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio), and Masonic Temple (Rock Springs, Wyoming). Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those references are pretty superficial -- not indicating notability of "Masonic buildings" as a topic, and particularly not explaining why the topic of "Masonic buildings not including Scottish Rite buildings, Shriners buildings, and others not using 'Masonic' in the name" would be notable. The book does suggest (consistent with a point made in one of the earlier discussions of the various "masonic building" pages) that Masonic architecture is a notable topic (albeit one with substantial overlap with Egyptian Revival and other topics related to the architectural styles favored by Freemasonry). However, neither this list, nor any of the other masonic building pages, is an article about Masonic architecture -- and this indiscriminate list would not even be a useful starting point for creating such an article. --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll give you that, Blueboar. From both yours and Orlady's comments, however, it still sounds to me like you've got a list with an unclear inclusion criteria. Come to a consensus on what the inclusion criteria should be, and then delete everything that doesn't fit. Whatever's left is this article. SnottyWong talk 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Say what?!? Blueboar and I are saying that this article should be deleted because (among other things) it has unclear inclusion criteria (NB: I also contend that it is not possible to identify any inclusion criteria that will not result in an indiscriminate and inherently unmaintainable list). Now, if I read your comment correctly, you are saying that the list should be retained, and we who support its deletion must take responsibility for defining an appropriate set of inclusion criteria (to help you achieve your objective of keeping it). Is this truly what you intended to say, or am I misreading you? --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You interpreted my comments correctly, although I didn't mean to suggest it was your responsibility to fix the article. I'm merely suggesting that it can be fixed through normal editing. The fact that the list has an unclear inclusion criteria basically means that there are some elements in the list which don't belong. They can easily be deleted from the article individually, the entire article need not be deleted. I disagree that it is "not possible" to identify suitable criteria for inclusion. Many have already been suggested above, which would not result in an indiscriminate list. For instance:
  1. Any notable building that has hosted freemason meetings for a significant period of time.
  2. Any notable building which was originally built by the freemasons (or whose construction was funded primarily by freemasons), or which was specifically built for the purpose of hosting freemason meetings.
  3. A building originally built for the purpose of holding Masonic meetings, and is still used for that purpose.
In my opinion, option #1 is not restrictive enough and option #3 is too restrictive. However, all 3 of these inclusion criteria do not result in an indiscriminate list. Deletion is not productive when all that needs to be done is to come to a consensus on an inclusion criteria, and then cull the article of elements which do not meet that criteria. SnottyWong talk 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there are both terminology and notability critieria issues somewhat clouding the discussion. Probably not helped by the proliferation of a single article under multiple titles. The fact that there is such an effort to try to justify is indicative that it's not all that notable, as an article.
The terminology issue reflects the lack of uniformity in Freemasonry worldwide. Personally I would say that a temple is the room within which a lodge is formed. That room may or may not be within a building dedicated to masonic use.
Returning to the point about finding an inclusion criterion, it seems that there is a majority opinion that mere inclusion in this USian focused register does not qualify, therefore all the red-links can be culled for the moment. If the building is notable enough at some point to justify an article then it can be indexed and categorised in whatever way prevails.
That leaves two points, is the subject of buildings with masonic associations sufficiently notable to justify an article, and thence what justifies inclusion of an already existing article? I'm unconvinced of the former in the first place, but if majority opinion is that it should remain then the latter comes in to play.
I have to confess that I'm struggling with that, I have in mind some buildings that I'd see as notable, but I'm not sure at the moment that I see a common theme. The three GL buildings in London, Edinburgh and Dublin are about the only clear ones. One of the challenges is the need to draw a distinction between the Lodge and the building. I see Mother Kilwinning No0 as notable, but Kilwinning Masonic Lodge probably isn't. Canonbury Tower may be notable, but Canonbury Tower Lodge probably isn't.
ALR (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "USian" meaning U.S.-centric (!). It's a side point, but a criteria saying no redlinks can be included is not rational, cannot be enforced, is inappropriate, does not help. You cannot ban having redlinks on a list-article. Also, in about 15 minutes i or anyone familiar with the NRHP stub article generator machine could create stub articles for all of the redlinks, which are all (i think) NRHP-listed places. It's not clear in the article that they are NRHP-listed but i believe these all are. The list-article has NOT attracted random additions of just any Masonic meetingplace. The deletion nominator has deleted the redlinks before off of the list and i have reverted that. Given that they are named "Masonic Temple" or similarly, it is highly likely that most meet any reasonable criteria for inclusion in the list, hence they are good candidates for this list-article. I have in fact noted one apparent exception, a Masonic Temple-named building that is in fact NRHP-listed more for its Jewish synagogue usage and i think renovations for that usage. But determining which ones are highly relevant for the list-article should be left to list-article developers who can also develop the individual articles, for example by requesting and reading the free NRHP application documents that are reliable, good sources. I object to the determined ignorance of the deletion nominator about the buildings that are currently listed in the list-article. As has been previously discussed at its Talk page i think, the fact one person doesn't know anything about a subject does not justify their deleting redlinks that they know nothing about. I do know they are wikipedia-notable places. The deletion nominator has repeatedly asserted non-interest in developing the individual articles and the list-article, which is fine, but then the person should stop opening new AFDs, merger proposals, discussion sections on the same topic of imperfections of this list-article. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the links are red or blue, comments by Snottywong (such as "This article is a list of notable buildings, and a navigational aid") and the above comment by Doncram indicate that this is a list of buildings with some sort of Masonic association that either have Wikipedia articles or appear to be notable for one reason or another, thus qualifying them for Wikipedia articles. That -- including the navigation value mentioned by Snottywong -- is excellent basis for creating a category, but it is not a reason to create a list in article space. Since Category:Masonic buildings exists, and the individual redlinked buildings are all linked in lists named in the pattern National Register of Historic Places listings in County, State, the list could be deleted without ado. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I believe your comments above are in direct contradiction with WP:LISTPURP. SnottyWong talk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are based in Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT, especially the sections WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the discussion of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" in WP:NOTDIR). In contrast the "LISTPURP" is a section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) that discusses practical aspects of (and good practices for) lists and categories. The Wikipedia manual of style does not supersede Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that separating out the issue of the article notability and the criteria for inclusion in the list is a useful way to clarify your arguments for retention. At the moment I'm getting an impression of quite a circular argument here, buildings are notable because they're notable. I'm afraid that Wikipedia criteria for notability are more significant than just being listed in this register. There should be multiple, substantive mentions in independent sources. That would give enough substance to argue for an article to exist. Personally I think that they artificially pad out the article in question with red links making it look more significant than it is.
I would also suggest that it's perhaps more constructive to avoid commenting on personal motivation of the nominator here and elsewhere. I would suggest that it undermines the argument for retention.
Can I suggest also that it's up to you to demonstrate notability of the article topic, and the various entries in it. Can you provide multiple sources that support your assertion that any list of buildings with Masonic significance is notable in the first instance?
ALR (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a listing of notable buildings. The notability of the buildings can be established by the individual Wikipedia articles for each building. The red-linked buildings, while they are problematic and need to be dealt with, do not imply that this is a list of non-notable buildings (and they are not a reason to delete the entire article). In fact, presumably all of the blue- and red-linked buildings appear in a Register of Historic Places (whether American, Canadian, or other), which is itself a sign of notability. So, I think we can agree that the (majority of the) elements of the list are notable. As for the list itself, there is a clear pattern common to all of them. They were all built by and/or associated with a particular organized group. So, this is not just a random cross-categorization and therefore does not violate WP:NOTDIR. Per WP:LISTPURP, this list serves as a navigational aid and is redundant with its category page (and that is actually encouraged). The buildings may also show up in other list articles (like List of historical buildings in County, State) and there is no problem with that because the buildings may fall into multiple categories, and readers should be able to search through them based on the different categories of which they are a part. I have provided sources above which show that there are encyclopedia articles and books devoted to the subject of Masonic buildings and Masonic temples. What else can I provide to you? SnottyWong talk 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about a list entitled List of buildings on the NRHP or List of historic buildings I would agree with you (as those are both notable topics)... but we are not... For an article List of X to pass WP:NOTE, it must be established (through reliable sources) that X is a notable topic. That has not been established for "Masonic buildings" (and I believe can not be established) Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The buildings may be notable, although I still question whether listing in a single source meets the demands of the notability, what I do have concerns about is whether Masonic buildings per se are notable, and then whether these individual buildings qualify for inclusion by dint of their association with the craft. As Blueboar identifies, if the name of the list indicated that it's a list of buildings listed in X then fair enough.
I would argue that the sources you've identified above only really confirm that the two words are used together inside a number of volumes, it's not clear from the listing whether the subjective is substantially the architecture of Masonic Buildings. In one case all you have is a title, no synopsis. In the UK and Europe many masonic buildings are either re-use or pretty nondescript, the main interest in masonic architecture tends to be about the temple, not the building.
Anyway, if the majority opinion is that the list stays then fair enough, we have another list of majority red-links or possibly blue links leading off to a host of almost identical one line articles.
ALR (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a fair characterization of the articles to which this list links. There are some stubs, but there are also some very detailed articles. Here are the first two random ones I chose: Masonic Lodge Building (Kirkland, Washington) and Salt Lake Masonic Temple. Ok, so your newest argument is that when you have List of X then X needs to be notable. Would it help it we renamed this article List of Masonic temples? We have a Masonic temple article, so therefore that term should be notable. SnottyWong talk 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, they're not temples. I've highlighted above that part of the difficulty here is the terminology, and why.
ALR (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You indicated your personal interpretation of the definition of a Masonic temple. Is that the actual definition? Are there sources to back that up? SnottyWong talk 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite probably there is, however we've deviated somewhat. I made some observations about terminology and how we define things, to illustrate some of the challenges in finding inclusion criteria, and ended up attacked by Doncram for some reason. I don't believe he's made a case of notability for the topic, or for individual inclusion, however I can see ways around that by retitling the article and probably making it US specific, since the main rationale is existence on a US document. I also don't think that you've made a case for notability.
Notwithstanding all of that, if the majority opinion is that the list remains then it remains. That's largely fair enough, that's how Wikipedia works.
ALR (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that. Let's see how the rest of the discussion goes, and let the closing admin call it. SnottyWong talk 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here... ALR is correct, Masonic Hall, Masonic Centre, Masonic Temple, etc. are all terms which mean essentially the same thing... a place where Freemasons meet, no more no less. This is frequently a specific building (and could be a great big fancy purpose built building), but it could also be a rented room at the community center. Which term is used really depends on what area of the world you are in and who you talk to. The United Grand Lodge of England in London meets at "Freemason's Hall"... In New York City its "Masonic Hall"... but in Philadelphia they meet at the "Masonic Temple". The terminology is not something you can base anything on.
As for the article Masonic Temple... When I created that article, I assumed it was a notable topic... but I am having difficulty finding any sources that discuss it, and am beginning to think it may not be as notable as I assumed after all. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About suggestions to retitle the article and make it US specific, I think that is not necessary. There are non-U.S.-located significant Masonic buildings, including notable ones "from Rome and Paris to Washington and Pushkin", mentioned in the fourth of the 4 sources Snotty rounded up easily. The fact that the list-article is incomplete does not suggest it needs to be deleted or renamed. --doncram (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I really think you are still just arguing over inclusion criteria. There is obviously no clear definition of what a "Masonic building" is. Big deal! If you define the inclusion criteria such that any building that passes it is notable, then you've solved the problem. If you make the inclusion criteria something like: "Any building that is notable on its own, which was also built by (or whose construction was primarily financed by) the freemasons" ... and then get rid of all of the buildings that don't fit that criteria, and then change the lead so that the inclusion criteria is clearly stated..... then you have just solved all of the problems you have with this article. Believe me, I probably !vote to delete about 90% of the AfD's that I contribute to. This one, however, I just don't see any reason to delete. SnottyWong talk 03:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - List based solely on NRHP listings, the actual listings for which are unavailable. Given the general criteria, any "Masonic building" >50 years old could be eligible for no other reason that the "historical notability" of being the first Masonic building in a given town. Without more solid indications, all we will end up wit his an unwieldy list. Furthermore, the classification and title are unnecessarily vague, and we at WP:FM haven't even quite hammered out what "Masonic building" is as a term. Once we do that, we can recreate it if needed, but I see this article as needless overcat with far too many redlinks. Having checked the NRHP site, the info behind the buildings is not accessible, and therefore there's nothing to build articles with to prevent redlinks. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely wrong in your premise. What is NRHP-listed is freely available in copies of the National Register's NRIS database, downloadable. Also the wealth of detail in usually 20-30 page NRHP application documents are freely available. For only some states, including CT, VA, NY and perhaps others the NRHP application documents are available on-line. For others they are available for free upon request by email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be emailed if scanned already or otherwise to be sent for free by postal mail. It has been upheld in multiple AFDs that NRHP-listed properties are Wikipedia-notable (because there is good documentation / reliable sourcing available for all, and all have passed several levels of review by state and federal officials regarding historic notability according to a set of objective criteria. Briefly, there is tons of info available to build articles for any redlinks that are NRHP-listed places (which i believe applies to most/all of the redlinks). --doncram (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I may be harshing on the deletion nominator, but the deletion nominator has elswhere expressed unwillingness/lack of personal interest in developing the NRHP articles. That's fine. But it is inappropriate to nominate a list-article for deletion on basis that the supporting documents have not been requested and used to develop the topic. The Wikipedia is not done yet, sure, but this is a valid topic for a list-article and the redlinks can most or all be developed with no notability issues. --doncram (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your PS is out of line... This AfD isn't about me or what I am or am not interested in editing ... this AfD is about one specific list article (List of Masonic buildings) and whether it should be deleted or not.
Now... I think we should focus on whether we can actually demonstrate that the topic of that article is notable. Snottywong has given us a few sources to examine, and I have done so... I agree with MSJapan's take that they do not adequately demonstrate the notability of the topic ... the one that comes closest is #3 (William Moore's Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes). I am familiar with this book... despite its title, the book's focus is predominantly on interior design of Masonic lodge rooms, and not the buildings themselves. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is any such demonstration standard required. This list-article seems generally in accordance with wp:SALAT appropriate topics for stand-alone list-articles. Looking at essay wp:LISTCRUFT IMO this does not meet any criterion for being crufty. I think you are not familiar with list-articles in Wikipedia (and i have previously suggested links to you for you to become more familiar with them, in some of the other discussion sections opened about this same topic). This list-article is clearly more useful and has encyclopedic potential far higher than many/most well-accepted list-articles in Wikipedia. --doncram (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not disagree more... all articles must meet the inclusion requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline... even lists. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the list-article meets standalone list criteria for being useful, as it clearly provides useful navigation among Masonic-associated buildings. I don't participate often in AFDs on list-articles so I could be corrected by someone providing contrary examples, but I don't believe that editors of other list-articles are forced to come up with the type of evidence that you would demand. It should suffice that many of the NRHP-listed ones are probably being presented as a good example of their type, Masonic buildings. And we even have some awareness that this "type" is somewhat unique, following its own architecture. It's a topic of interest to some. --doncram (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the couple of extraneous non-notable items in this list were deleted, then this list would consists solely of notable buildings. So, the ideal, perfect version of this list is a list of notable items. Furthermore, all of these items have a common, non-trivial trait between them. Show me another list of notable items which all share a common, non-trivial trait which has been deleted. Or, show me a policy/guideline which says that that is not enough to have a list article. That is practically the definition of what a list article should be. SnottyWong talk 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "common non-trivial trait"? Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, Blueboar has been given an exceptional amount of attention by wikipedia editors answering this question and his other variations, here and in about 15 other AFDs, mainspace article Talk page sections, WikiProject Freemasonry talk page sections, and other locations. Enough! I would like to move that this AFD be closed as an obvious KEEP, based especially on Snotty's patient explanations so far to the deletion nominator. --doncram (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup... when you can not answer the questions or address the issues raised, attack the editor who raises them... I repeat my last question: What is the "common non-trivial trait" that Snotty is talking about?" Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. the fact that they are all associated in some way with the freemasons? Do I really need to spell that out? Look, there very well may be entries in this list that are non-notable buildings. If that's the case, then the solution is to clarify the inclusion criteria, and delete the non-notable entries. The "common non-trivial trait" can even be strengthened by choosing a restrictive inclusion criteria, i.e. that the building must be #1) notable on its own, and #2) its construction primarily financed by the freemasons. There is no argument to delete the entire article. Please read WP:ATD. SnottyWong talk 14:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would moving this article to List of notable Masonic buildings help? SnottyWong talk 14:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - blunt notability is an inclusion criteria for WP articles, not for lists. As they're presumed notable just to be here, "notability" is still too broad a criterion for a long worldwide list. "Masonic buildings in City" would be good though, "Significant (tighter than notable) buildings in Country" or "Masonic buildings by Architect", "Masonic buildings with spires/helipads/jacuzzis" might be relevant too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article being too long is not grounds for deletion. SnottyWong talk 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to delete this as a concept, but to implement it better through using a category. An unqualified list of "Any Masonic buildings" would be either incomplete (as here), or far too long to be manageable. A readable, completed article on a manageable list needs to be qualified into more specific lists. An open-ended list of everything works better as a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument for deletion. What you are describing is just a regular editing process which does not require the deletion of the article in question. SnottyWong talk 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was the case... you are assuming that "being associated in some way with the Freemasons" is non-trivial. I don't think that is a valid assumption. There are a lot of things "associated in some way with the Freemasons" that are trivial. To show that "Freemasons meet in these buildings" (which accounts for all the various terms being used) is a non-trivial trait, you need sources that discuss the trait. I contend that the fact that we can not come up with any, indicates that the trait is, in fact, trivial. You asked for a policy/guideline which says we should not have this article... Start with WP:NOTE and move on to WP:V... "if no reliable sources discuss a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". No sources on the topic... no article. It is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, you are bordering pretty close on wikilawyering now. Of course there are a lot of things associated with the Freemasons that are trivial. That statement could be made about any subject. Just because trivial things associated with Freemasons exist doesn't mean that the buildings which were built by the Freemasons are trivial. These buildings wouldn't exist were it not for the Freemasons. How can you possibly categorize that connection as trivial? SnottyWong talk 16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't wiki-laywering, this is what WP:NOTE and AfD is all about. We can not just assume that a topic is notable, we have to demonstrate that it is notable... by referencing reliable sources. So... show that "buildings which were built by the Freemasons" is not a trivial topic... locate some reliable sources that discuss that topic (by any term or name you wish to call the topic). I have looked, I have not been able to find any. It really is that simple.
Our articles on Masonic temple and Masonic lodge prove the notability of those topics. If the list elements are notable, and they are included as a result of a reasonable inclusion criteria (which links them in a significant, non-random way), then that's all that's required for a list article. SnottyWong talk 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear inclusion criteria. Meets WP:List and WP:CLN discounts the category duplicative arguement. The fact that it is duplicative of three DAB pages might indicate the DAB pages are ill-concieved. As they are special kinds of lists, it seems inappropriate to make the duplicative statement based on them. I am confident there are 1000s of DAB pages that duplicate other real lists. A rename to the effect: List of Masonic Lodges, Temples and Buildings would certainly simplify things. Deletion is not the answer here.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a very open-ended set of buildings that's likely to expand. As such, categorization to Category:Masonic buildings is a far more practical way to manage it.
I'd have no problem with List of <foo> Masonic buildings, where this was some more restrictively defined subset of them. Masonic buildings in Washington, or Ingolstadt could benefit from such an overall list, but at a worldwide scale it's simply too big to go into additional detail.
There's some justification to a list article over a category because it offers the editorial convenience of showing redlinks for future article targets. Although that's in use here, they seem to be taken from a gazeteer of the Midwest, rather than world Masonic buildings by significance: Muncie but not the Royal Masonic Schools? As it's an editorial worklist (and useful as such) it could easily exist on the category or project's talk: pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the information that this set of buildings is likely to expand to the point that it will become unmanageably large? I haven't seen any evidence of that, and furthermore, as I've explained numerous times above, a careful definition of the inclusion criteria for the list can prevent this from happening, by limiting the list to buildings that are already notable on their own. If anything, this argument is actually counterproductive to your delete !vote, as it shows how much information is potentially available to add to this article.
Secondly, as you should already know, Andy, the fact that an article is incomplete or US-centric is not grounds for deletion. "Why don't you spend your time improving the article instead of arguing for its deletion?" Ahh, how the tables have turned... SnottyWong talk 15:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49 entries in the list at present, out of a category that already contains 60 entries and can easily expand far beyond this. Either the list article stalls where it is mostly redlinked, it grows to a level that's truly unwieldy, or it gains filter criteria that include some notable articles and exclude other equally notable, but irrelevant, articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: There are 60 pages in the "Masonic buildings" category and an additional 35 pages in its subcategories. --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We need to define better inclusion criteria. I've said this at least 10 times already. None of what you are saying is an argument to delete the article. Your suggestions are all regular editing processes which have nothing to do with the deletion of this article. SnottyWong talk 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userify this, copy it to your sandbox, paste it as headers into new list articles that can have a viable future. "List of any and all Masonic buildings" can't fly. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion. SnottyWong talk 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is ILIKEIT (which is essentially the keep argument here) ... sources people... it comes down to the simple question of whether there are sources that discuss this topic. We can tinker with the inclusion criteria till the cows come home... but it is pointless to do so if there are no reliable sources that discuss the topic. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your question is purely that of notability, do you support the deletion of Category:Masonic buildings too? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am not sure about the category... My gut reaction is to say yes... if the underlying topic is non-notable we should not have a category... but I am not as familiar with the rules and guidelines for categories as I am with articles. Categories are purely "behind the scenes" navigational tools. They are not in "Article Space" and I know different standards apply. The same is somewhat true for the dab page [[Masonic Temple {disambiguation)]]. dab pages are purely navigational in intent... and it is accepted that different rules and standards govern them (for example, I don't know if WP:V or WP:NOTE applies to dab pages... they apply to the articles being disambiguated, but I don't think they apply to the dab page itself... or at least not in the same way). Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most lists in Wikipedia have not been published elsewhere, yet serve the wikipedia well in organizing information for readers. The list topic does comply with content policy. What content policy, specifically, do you think is violated? --doncram (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram - Good question. I've asked the same question before in response to this editor's boilerplate list deletion rationale in multiple AfDs. Here--Mike Cline (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are no reliable, third-party sources for the list itself, then Wikipedia should not have such a list either. Mike, I am sorry to prick your bubble, but if there is no such list in the real world, then there should not be one in Wikipedia. This article might make an interesting appendices to a book or paper on this topic, but that is not a good reason to create a list here, for Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE on Virginia, as an example I added to the Virginia section of this list article, which now covers 4 unique and interesting Masonic buildings. This includes sufficient sourced material that I think any reasonable person should agree shows they are significant Masonic buildings. One is a "Hall", one is a "Temple", one is a "Memorial", one is a "Lodge"; all served as Masonic meetingplaces and are primarily known for their Masonic associations. (Aside: By the way, none of the 4 VA items are covered in the competing list-article Masonic Temple. At least one was listed there but, as a redlink then, was repeatedly deleted. It seems stupid to me to delete items off a list-article that are temporary red-links, when they are expected to become important, relevant items in the list-article.) Please see List of Masonic buildings#Virginia. --doncram (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE on sources which establish notability: ::::Let's look at google hits alone. A search for "Masonic temple" -wikipedia yields 933,000 results. A search for "Masonic lodge" -wikipedia yields 1,220,000 results. An awful lot of people seem to like taking pictures of these mundane, non-notable objects. There's also a decent amount of news about them. Let's look at a couple of books on the subject:
SnottyWong talk 15:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... let's actually look at these books...

  • The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry ... primarily about the symbolism of Masonic art and decoration... no substantial discussion of Masonic buildings as buildings.
  • Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry ... Discusses architecture as a science... does not discuss the topic of Masonic buildings as tall.
  • Detroit's Masonic Temple - About one specific building ... not the topic of Masonic buildings in general.
  • Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes... we have already discussed this one above... it is about the interior decoration of a lodge rooms... not the buildings.
  • Masonic Architecture - OK, the Livingston Masonic Library here in NY did not have this one available... so I have not yet checked to see if it discusses the topic of "Masonic buildings".
  • The secret architecture of our nation's capital: the Masons and the Building of Washington D.C. About the Architecture of Washington DC... not about Masonic buildings.

So, of the six sources you suggest we look at... only one might possibly perhaps (maybe) support the idea that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable (and I will be checking on that)... the rest do not. (Please, do not assume that a source discusses a topic based on a quick google search and the book's title.) Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly sufficient sources. Its bad enough when people write articles without listing the sources; it's even worse when experience WPedians try to delete them without looking themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG... you should know me better than that... the entire point of my last post is that I have looked at the sources (unlike those who are !voting to keep)... Please do not assume the sources exist and cover the topic... when in fact they don't. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try this the other way... can anyone clearly express what does make the topic of "Masonic buildings" notable? Can we identify even three common traits that would help us distinguish a "Masonic building" from some other type of building? Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(with strikeout) Same question as Blueboar asked 4 minutes before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple, where it has been responded to. --doncram (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not strikeout someone else's comments. It is considered disruptive. While the questions are indeed essentially the same... they are also slightly different ... as this one asks about the broader topic of "Masonic buildings" while the question asked at the other AfD asks about the narrower topic of "Masonic Temples". Since you were unable or unwilling to answer the question as it relates to the more specific topic, can I assume that you can or will not answer it as it relates to the broader topic? Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is interested in answering your questions, because there is no WP policy that says "any article about which less than three common traits can be identified must be deleted". You're making up silly rules as you go along, and no one is interested in playing the game anymore. We have already demonstrated notability six ways from Sunday. Let's agree to disagree and let the closing admin do his/her job. SnottyWong comment 22:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but there is a WP policy that says an article topic must be notable... so what about the first part of my question... can you express what makes the topic of Masonic buildings notable? Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Snotty could ask the Article Rescue Squadron for help? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Masonic_buildings