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. After relisting, the consensus seems to be keep. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. The "oldest continuously operating lodge in America" that this lodge claims is not supported by secondary sources, and it is in fact not this lodge, but St. John's Lodge on Boston, having been created minutes after the formation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1733 that holds that distinction. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It claims that it is the oldest, but even if its not then it's very old and it's the mother lodge of Georgia. JASpencer (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As a response to the above, no Masonic jurisdiction has a "mother lodge" - because of the way the United Grand Lodge of England was initially formed, it is a requirement that no less than three lodges can form a Grand Lodge, and many times, permission must be requested from elsewhere to do so. MSJapan (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the above statement is more or less intended to imply that the statements of editors here take priority over official statements of a Masonic group, that certainly raises serious questions regarding whether any internal statements of Masonic groups qualify as reliable by our standards. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I had the same thought... however, the Grand Lodge of Georgia does refer to it as their "mother lodge" on the GL webpage. It is difficult to deal with the misuse of technical terms, when the very people doing the misuse are those in charge (who should know better).

I am going to speculate here... when some of the brothers of a Masonic lodge hive off to create a new lodge, they often refer to their original one as the "mother lodge" (and the new lodge as its "daughter"). It may be that all the other lodges that formed the original Provincial Grand Lodge of Georgia were "daughter lodges", off shoots from Solomon's Lodge. This would account for the usage (However, this is speculation... again, we need sources, sources, sources!) Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only lodge in Georgia for 50 years .At least one of the three lodges that created the Grand Lodge was a schism from Solomon, and another one was Solomon. The other two lodges no longer exist (as well as all of the first seven chartered in Georgia) which is another reason why it's known as the mother lodge. Finally they really, really treasure it as a 250 year old lodge is pretty notable to them. 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Notable to them"? Where is that standard reflected in policy? Why are we discussing this? EveryW Wikepedia article edit page contains a notice which says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Qualified Delete The lodge may indeed be notable, but if so the article needs to support that. An organization's own claims are not sufficient. Notability must be established by third party sources, and these sources must be cited.
  RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep - The lodge is singled out for a brief mention in S. Brent Morris's Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (page 31). Note: Morris does not repeat the claim that it is the "oldest continuously operating lodge in America", but he does say that it was founded in 1735 in Charleston, SC - "where it still meets today" (I take this as an allusion to the claim, without actually repeating it.) It's not much, but it is something. (oops, never mind, I just noticed that Morris is talking about a different Solomon's Lodge) Changing opinion to: Qualified Delete - while it is logical to assume that an old lodge like this should be notable, WP:ORG calls for independent sourcing to actually establish that notability. We do need more than just the organization's own word for it. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin there are in fact 10 citations currently, of which one is the Solomon's Lodge website. JASpencer (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for notability is being made on the organization's claim of of being the oldest lodge. The other citations do not support notability, but other facts, such as who were members. If you believe the organization is notable then don't argue the point here. Instead update the article with verifiable, reliable third party sources that support that. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. * * * No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. * * * An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. * * * Qualifying published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service." Notability_(organizations_and_companies). RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuating that these sources aren't independent is not enough. Could you tell me where Keswick publishing, the Grand Lodge of Georgia and the Georgia history society aren't independent of the subject? JASpencer (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Lodge of Georgia is not independent, but more to the point age is not ipso facto enough for notability. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 15:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Grand Lodge of Georgia superior to the source. And saying that it's the mother lodge is quite a large claim for a non notable lodge. And I suppose that the Texas Grand Lodge is also not independent? JASpencer (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Superior" is the wrong term to use... in some things a Grand Lodge is "superior", in others the local lodge is actually "superior" (its sort of like asking whether the US Federal government is superior to a US State government?... the answer depends on what you are talking about). Solomon's Lodge is actually a voting member of the Grand Lodge of Georgia... so there is an argument to say that neither is independent of the other when it comes to sourcing. The Texas Grand Lodge would be independent of both (but it does not comment upon the topic). Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oglethorpe founding makes it notable. Ahwiv (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Actually, it absolutely and unequivocally does not, because notability is not inherited. Additionally, if only two men founded it without a charter from elsewhere, then it wasn't a legal lodge at the time of its founding. That is unlikely, so there were certainly others involved. MSJapan (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant in this case. It might not make a paper encyclopedia, but this is not one of those. Still a keep. Ahwiv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first part of MSJapan's comment is definitely relevant... WP:NOTINHERITED does indeed come into play here... the fact that an organization was founded by a famous person is not a valid reason for Wikipedia to have a stand alone article on the organization. At best, it means we can include a passing mention of the lodge in the bio article on Oglethorpe. AGAIN... what is needed are reliable independent sources that do more than just mention the lodge in passing (in the context of discussing something else). If such independent sources exist, then the topic is notable enough for a stand alone article... if not, it isn't. So far, the sources are either not independent (SPS sources by the lodge itself and by the Grand Lodge of which it is a member), or are no more than passing references in the context of discussing something else. That simply is not enough to justify a stand-alone article on the lodge.

That said... It probably is enough to mention the lodge in several other articles... I would encourage those who wish to keep to think about merger as an alternative. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking the notinherited to the point of Reductio ad absurdum. Notable people can do notable things. Also, if there are problems with the article, identify them in the article and allow time for them to be fixed. Don't reflexively delete the. Ahwiv (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The article has to stand on its own merits. That's the whole point of WP:NOTINHERITED. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability is apparently established already. The Georgia Historical Society webpage on the topic is from an independent source, and is certainly nontrivial, and the Tatsch book probably provides the second reliable source required. In addition to the error made above, about "no assertion of notability," which is clearly counterindicated, as the age could be seen as an assertion of notability, I notice that there is perhaps another error which has occurred in this process, the error in the "proposed deletion" template that most local or regional lodges are not themselves inherently notable. That may be true, it is hard to tell, but there is certainly no clear evidence to that effect, and on that basis the assumption made is not itself apparently supported. Also, we do have some guidelines somewhere, I forget where, that indicate that lack of verified notability of what might be called marginally notable topics, such as this one, is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for deletion. If the deletion goes ahead anyway, I believe that there is good reason to request deletion review shortly thereafter, as I believe the editors who frequent that process are probably the most familiar with what is and is not considered sufficient established notability for articles of marginal notability. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of masonic lodges all over the world. I would think it pretty obvious that the vast majority are not notable and do not justify mention in either a print encyclopedia or Wikipedia. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 17:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I regret to say that your own comment above seems to be placing personal opinions, such as what you do and don't think "pretty obvious," over policies and guidelines, which in this case specifically include WP:NOTPAPER. I can and do see, for instance, that I myself, as a Catholic, would question the inclusion of a separate article on each and every religious order of the Catholic church, some of which are and never have been of any particular size or notable accomplishments. But that is a personal opinion, and more or less in conflict with our existing policies and guidelines. Also, I see no clear evidence that any print encyclopedias have been checked by you. It may well be that this group, and any number of others, for all I know, is included in one or more print encyclopedias regarding secret societies, Freemasonry, or whatever. I think it is perhaps extremely unfortunate if any of us decide to act on our own possibly less-than-perfectly-knowledgable-and-objective opinions before actually trying to determine if such print sources might actually exist. I am myself this week going to try to get together lists of articles included in such reference sources, and I think it might make a lot of sense to at least review the results of that search before making any such perhaps premature judgments. One obvious example which comes to mind is that the 4-volume reference Religions of the World includes a separate article on Eklesia Niue, the predominant church in Niue, which at this point so far as I remember has less than 2,000 living there. I've have often found that the reference sources for topics often disagree with my own opinions, and have learned on that basis not to try to rush to judgment regarding them. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So every single statement, no matter how obviously true, must be sourced, even it is not made in the context of an article? One is not asked to prove negatives. That's the entire purpose of the notability requirement. What evidence do you have that every lodge, or most every lodge, or whatever IS notable? No one here is suggesting putting personal opinions in articles. But I assure you I am QUITE knowledgeable of the facts concerning this topic and it really is going out on a limb to suggest that polices require proof, or even logic. They don't require proof (or logic). They require consensus. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I make any such statements as the above editor indicates, nor do I believe that any of my comments necessarily lead to the conclusions you drew above. I find the clearly personal comments above quite inappropriate, and i very strongtly urge him to refrain from further clearly argumentative comments' as some of those above. I also ask the closing admin to review the possible biases of some of the editors involved. Consensus primarily refers to those who do not have a clear and overriding POV regarding a topic. Policy and guidelines are rather specific that obvious matters of POV should be regarded as such. I very sincerely ask the above editor to refrain from any futther attempts to put words in the mouths of others, and rather to confine any further comments he might make to matters of policy and guidelines, because it is actually consensus based on them which matters. While I am not in a position to judge whether the above editor is the expert he declares himself to be, I do also believe that even in such cases where indidivual editors declare themselves to be "experts", it is still, in general, policies and guidelines which matter. I believe the policies and guidelines are rather clear in this case, and that an final decision, based on them, by a neutral and nonbiased party, is what is sought, not the preemptary decision of a self-described expert. I very sincerely hope that any further comments deal directly with the matter under discussion, and not such off-topic digressions as some of the comments I have seen. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's back up here; this whole conversation is not going to help the admin resolve this AFD. The only disagreement I had was with your statement that "I notice that there is perhaps another error which has occurred in this process, the error in the "proposed deletion" template that most local or regional lodges are not themselves inherently notable. That may be true, it is hard to tell, but there is certainly no clear evidence to that effect, and on that basis the assumption made is not itself apparently supported." I disagree that I have to prove a negative when it comes to policy, and the policies I'm referring to are the ones about not having to cite references to show that the sky is blue, the requirement to cite references to show positives, not negatives (i.e., notability) and the fact that this forum - and the opening templates, are not articles for which citing references are inapplicable. Also, since it seems to have bothered you, I will point out that I described myself as very knowledgeable, not as an expert. For that matter, I assume you are just as knowledgeable, which is why I cannot understand why you would feel most (or however many) local lodges are notable to the extent that you believe a statement to the contrary in an AFD template requires support. It just seems obvious. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 20:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The obvious statements made by editors to the effect that a group of individuals who have clearly identified themselves as associated with the Freemasons which to somewhat arbitrarily limit the number of articles related to the topic is a very serious concern, and seems to my eyes rather clearly violate WP:OWN. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that local level lodges are not inherently notable comes directly from WP:ORG notability guideline... which states: As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. (bolding mine for emphasis)

Once again... it all comes down to sources, That's what anyone closing the AfD needs to focus on. Are there sources? Are they independent? and do they substantially discuss the topic? Everything else is simply irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, while I am sure that the closing admin will be extremely grateful to you, Blueboar, for apparently attempting to dictate the outcome of this discussion, I note that there are several other issues beyond those you have unilaterally declared to be the only relevant ones. Also, I note that consensus around here generally refers to consensus of those who do not have a clear bias regarding the matter, and there are serious questions regarding that matter as well. Therefore, if it is not too much of a burden to you, would it be possible for you to discuss the matter objectively and neutrally, rather than rather presumptuously attempt to dictate the outcome of this discussion? John Carter (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. GNews search[1] shows that this lodge has been receiving national newspaper coverage for its antiquity going back to the 19th century. Examples:[2][3][4][5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 1926 is not "the 19th century", most of the hits are obits of members, and one source in 1849 says the lodge in Boston is older (which it is). Therefore, I'd say that the sources after that are incorrect, or at least contradictory. Also, in many of those sources, the information is coming from the group, so it's not independent. So again, why is this lodge notable? Because it says it's old? That's it? MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are doubts about the accuracy of the claim, the remedy is to attribute the claims to the sources, not to try to pretend that the claims don't exist. Whether or not it's actually oldest, it's still obviously notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's is a good approach, but hardly helpful: No one has done that. The claims have been challenged; if they remain unsupported or unverifyable then the article should go until such time as it can be resubmitted with appropriate, verifyable support. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - This should be simple... The article is governed by our WP:ORG notability guideline... which states:

• As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. (bolding mine for emphasis)

I am sorry to keep harping on this, but... that is what should determine this AFD... do we have sources that mention the lodge? Yes... but those that discuss it substantially are not independent ... and those that are independent are not substantial. We need both at the same time. All of the other arguments for and against are simply WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments. I wish this lodge had sourcing that met our criteria, and it is a shame that this isn't the case. But... the simple fact is... there just isn't the right kind of sourcing. Given our guidelines, we really have no choice. Despite its age, it simply does not pass WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice argument, but factually wrong. Historical Society of Georgia and the book "Freemasonry in the Thirteen colonies" are both independent of the subject. It doesn't seem you have applied your test to each of the ten sources. JASpencer (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBooks returns some 1,950 results on "Solomon's Lodge," "Georgia" here. One of those, a history of Charleston South Carolina, reproduced in part here, may or may not qualify as "Local", because I haven't checked the publisher, but it certainly also provides some substantive content regarding the lodge. JSTOR also returns at least 17 matches for "Solomon's Lodge", "Georgia" here, which I can't check right now, but it seems some relate rather substantively to the topic. I also wish to call to the attention of the closing administrator some of the comments made on this page by some of those who have identified themselves in wikipedia as Freemasons, particularly those statements which indicated something to the effect of individuals associated with that group wish to limit the number of articles for reasons other than encyclopedic ones, which raises rather serious concerns in and of itself. If I could find this material as quickly as I did, I wonder why those who much more regularly deal with this subject could not, or would not, be able to find them as well, unless, of course, perhaps some editors were motivated by purposes other than improving the encyclopedia, such as perhaps, wishing to arbitrarily limit the number of articles related to Freemasonry. In my own limited activity at deletion review, it has been brought to my attention that if there is a claim of notability, even if the sources required to establish notability are not yet necessarily produced because of the possibly limited amount of sources immediately available, that we should err on the side of inclusion for at least a time, so that the required notability can be established. I believe the closing admin will probably be more familiar with those arguments than myself, and, honestly, I am rather busy with other things, which is why I am not producing them, hoping the closing admin will know them. If not, as I already stated, I believe that there is more than sufficient cause for deletion review to be requested if, for whatever reason, this article is deleted.

My apologies for the erroenous inclusion of the link to the SC lodge. Over the past few days, I, stupidly, was searching for info on that group, not the Georgia one, and the force of habit kicked in. I hope that is taken into account when my lack of finding the sources I claimed to be seeking didn't produce any useful results, I was looking for the wrong one. Stupid of me, and I trout-slapping myself for it right now, actually. And, unfortunately, I don't have any Georgia travel guides here to check to see if they mention it. I do note that none of the SC guides I found mentioned that lodge, though. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as iterated above. "As a general rule..." doesn't mean always. You always have a choice. Ahwiv (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article seems well sourced. Both the person who first {{prod}}ed the article, and the nominator, have challenged whether the lodge is the oldest. As per WP:VER, that is not relevant, if WP:RS state it is the oldest. Further, even at the time of the {{prod}} our article didn't say this lodge was the oldest. Our article said, accurately and neutrally, that the lodge claimed to be the oldest. Geo Swan (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2013 (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.