Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:15, 23 June 2010

Masonic Temple

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

Notability of the topic can not be established through reference to reliable sources. I am the initial creator of this article. When I created it, I assumed that the topic of Masonic Temples was notable. However, after an extensive search, I have not been able to locate reliable sources that are independent of the topic that actually discuss the topic. I have found several sources that use the term... but none that discuss it in any depth. The closest I have found is a three paragraph sidebar in "Freemasons for Dummies". I had hopes for William Moore's Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes, but that focuses on interior design and decoration and not on the buildings themselves. I am therefor forced to admit that my assumption was wrong, and the topic is not notable after all. Please note: there is a related AfD discussion for List of Masonic buildings Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This probably qualifies under G7, since not only has the author requested deletion, but the rest of the history indicates that the information has been placed elsewhere. The interior design of a building can be notable, of course, even if the outside isn't. A large part of secrecy is to have an outward appearance that attracts no attention. Mandsford 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7?! Are you kidding me? If you actually read G7, you'll notice it says it's only applicable if "...the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author..." This is obviously not the case, and this article doesn't even come close to meeting any speedy deletion criteria. SnottyWong talk 19:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the basic assessment is wrong. I suppose the Detroit Masonic Temple is just trying to blend in. PeRshGo (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Mandsford changes his !vote to Keep below. SnottyWong talk 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Blueboar is escalating his disruptive behavior with this set of articles by starting this AfD. He has started multiple merging/moving discussions on various pages while at the same time nominating other articles for deletion. I am not sure what his motivation is, but this AfD is purely disruptive and is just wasting everyone's time. Just because Blueboard was the initial creator of the article doesn't mean anything, he does not own the article. All of the concerns that Blueboar has about this article can be fixed with normal editing. Many of the buildings that this article describes are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. If the exact term "Masonic Temple" is not the correct term to use to describe these buildings, then a move request should be made to move the article to the correct name. There is no reason to nominate this article for deletion. SnottyWong talk 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. Artw (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't cleanup... it goes directly to GNG... no sources discuss this topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is nothing more than Blueboar trying to circumvent consensus. The article isn’t turning out the way HE wanted so he wants it deleted. “My way or the highway” has no place on Wikipedia. PeRshGo (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, keep this one. Out of Masonic Temple (disambiguation), List of Masonic buildings and Masonic Temple, I think that the original problem was that there were three separate lists which appear to be two more than are actually necessary. Needless to say, the opinions that any editor has about any another editor are not anything that needs to be vented here. Mandsford 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that we currently have more lists than are needed but I see no merit in pretending something is what it is not for the sake of proper procedure. PeRshGo (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and question process: "Delete" is actually my !Vote, if the process for making decisions on the linked articles and dab pages and categories related to Masonic buildings is to be done one by one, spread out over many AFDs and Merger proposals. I am confused what related articles exist as of now. But, the AFD on List of Masonic buildings is headed for a "Keep" decision, and it is the oldest list-article (and source of most of content currently here, copied in) and I support its general name. There only needs to be one list-article probably and that is it. There is no need for a separate article defining the term "Masonic Temple". If that is a defined term, then a Wiktionary entry can be checked or created and linked from the disambiguation page about places named "Masonic Temple". Otherwise, there is little or no sourced content here, and whatever useful discussion about the Mason's terms vs. public terms should be included as a sentence or two in the Freemasonry article. This is more or less the same as my opinion about Masonic Lodge, currently a separate article. For other fraternal organizations, I believe there is one big article about the organization giving some of its terminology. For Boy Scouts and other organizations, there is also just one article i think, not separate ones defining what is a Girl Scout Troop vs. a Girl Scout Council vs. a Den or whatever. So, I don't like the AFD being opened separately from any one comprehensive proposal, but my own comprehensive proposal would currently include merging this topic into Freemasonry and the List of Masonic buildings. But, when/where is there to be a central discussion for comprehensive proposals? I have previously tried to promote such, but i am overwhelmed with the AFDs and separate discussions everywhere. --doncram (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks... this is simple... are there independent reliable sources that discuss this topic? Yes or no? If yes, what are they? If no, then the article should be deleted. I am sorry that you dislike the nomination and feel it is in some way "disruptive" or "out of process" or "against consensus" for me to nominate this article... but raising an issue like this is what AfD is for. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an article of this nature there doesn't NEED to be sources that discuss commonality. The fact that there are hundreds of Masonic Temples that are individually notable make the topic its self notable. Trying to take down this article on grounds of notability is ridiculous. PeRshGo (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Are we still arguing about notability? SnottyWong talk 03:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... because not one of those sources actually discusses Masonic Temples as a distinct topic or in any depth. (I would suggest you actually go to a library, as I did, and look at the sources and stop assuming things based on a google search and your opinion). Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of those sources discuss Masonic temples. How can you possibly argue that they don't? I'm preparing for the imminent wikilawyering: SnottyWong talk 04:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I actually went to a library and looked at them (well... ok... I have not seen Moses Redding's Masonic Architecture yet, but I have been able to check the others, and they don't discuss the topic of "Masonic Temples"). Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't discuss "Masonic Temples"?! What about the one that uses "Masonic temple" in its title (Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes)?! I have been to the library too, and I can confirm that all of these sources discuss Masonic temples in one way or another. SnottyWong talk 13:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize, of course, that Masonic temples are buildings, right? And what are the most interesting and notable elements of buildings? Their architecture, interior design, common uses, etc. Multiple sources which discuss (at length) the architecture of such buildings, the interior design of such buildings, and the common uses of such buildings do establish the notability of these buildings. In your opinion, what else would you need sources for Masonic temple to discuss in order to pass your interpretation of WP:N? SnottyWong talk 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, but if this article is kept, the contents of Masonic Temple (disambiguation) should be merged into it. Considering the widespread use of the name "Masonic Temple" and the fact that there seems to be a little bit of WP:RS information on the meaning of that name, there appears to be some justification for saying that this is a notable topic that should be the subject of a short article. However, most of this article is a wikilinked list of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names; and Masonic Temple (disambiguation) is also a wikilinked list of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names. The distinction between the two lists is not at all obvious -- surely there is no need for two separate lists of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's end this AfD and start a merge discussion. SnottyWong talk 04:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mandsford's comment at 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC). I don't have a strong opinion about what the resulting article should be titled. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources no article. TFD (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Brit (and non-Mason), I'm unfamiliar with the term (Masons hereabouts meet in "Lodges"). However there do seem to be a number of verifiable Masonic buildings in the USA that are described as "Temples". I'd appreciate an article that clarifies whether this is a regional or a functional difference and offers me both explanation and etymology.

Good point. I think that can be easily done. PeRshGo (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that... I tried... no sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the term is minor, we only require notability not "major notability". There are already a number of wiki articles describing "Temples" with good references to support their naming as such. Arguing from the existence of numerous notable articles using the name "Temple" to a general article on the term itself is acceptably self-evident, even to our policies. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly merge with List of Masonic buildings. There's around half a million GHits for "Masonic temple", so to claim the concept is non-notable seems ludicrous - and it's a stiff test of my ability to abide by WP:AGF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pick a few examples that you think are reliable and discuss the topic? I suspect that most of these hits are lodge websites that say nothing more than: "Fidelity Lodge #123 meets in the Masonic Temple on Main Street on the fourth Tuesday of each month." Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off the list, first ref. I believe this to be WP:RS that discusses the existence and naming as "Temple" of at least one building. Having demonstrated the notability of one "Temple" and assumed the existence of many similar (just for convenience), I'm finding it hard to see how an overall description of the term in general doesn't meet policy. However I suspect you might disagree with this, given your claim in the other AfD that Category:Masonic buildings isn't supportable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is little doubt about the existence of buildings called Masonic Temple, I'd agree with Blueboar that there is a dearth of credible sources that actually analyses them as buildings. There are other meanings for the term but again very few sources actually discuss them in anything more than passing. there is a related point about the proliferation of articles on much the same topic, whether that be Masonic Building, Masonic Temple or Masonic Lodge. It would significantly simplify discussion and progress to cull some of them and as with Doncram it looks as if the List article on Masonic Buildings is likely to have a majority of votes to keep it, so this one should go. ALR (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The idea that there are no sources is outrageous. Multiple books with the term "Masonic Temple" in their titles have been proffered, but the nominator is asserting that these books do not actually discuss Masonic temples? What are they about, puppy dogs and unicorns? The fact that there are numerous Masonic temples that are notable in and of themselves makes the category notable, even if for some reason dozens of people are printing books purporting to be about Masonic temples which never actually mention the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.36 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books that have "Masonic Temple" in their title are about Masonic art, symbolism, and decorative design. They do not discuss the topic of this article (the buildings themselves). What is the old saying... don't judge a book by its cover... the same goes for titles... don't assume you know what a book is about based on its title.

I realize how counter-intuitive this is... It is very hard to accept that there are no sources for this topic... I fully understand why everyone assumes that that there should be lots and lots of sources. Hell... I was guilty of the exact same assumption when I created this article... I started it based on the assumption that it would be easy to find sources upon which to build the article. But, after actually spending half a month looking for sources, and examining those I found, I was forced to admit that this assumption was wrong. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the sources, but with your conception of what a source must contain in order to be considered a source. Books about the architecture, interior design, and construction of such buildings are sources, whether you like it or not. If you think they're not, then please tell me what aspects of the buildings a source must cover in order to be considered a source, by your definition. SnottyWong spill the beans 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are sources... but they are not sources that establish the notability of this particular topic (Masonic Temples). The article in question is about a class of buildings we call Masonic Temples (aka Masonic Halls, Masonic Lodge buildings, or several other terms). For a source to establish notability, it must discuss these buildings in general terms... it must give significant coverage (as defined by WP:NOTE) to these buildings as a class or type of building. It should outline what a Masonic Temple is... and what the purpose of a Masonic Temple is. It should discuss the common characteristics by which we identify such buildings and distinguish them from other buildings. Ideally it would discuss how such buildings developed and have how they have changed over time. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an authoritative treatise on Masonic Temples does not bother me as much as it does you, Blueboar. The "for Dummies" source (which I haven't actually seen), plus numerous documents describing individual buildings called "Masonic Temple," (including many, like http://www.trentonmasonictemple.com/ , that use "Masonic Temple" as a generic term), ought to be sufficient basis for saying that "Masonic Temple" is a name given to many meeting halls and auditoriums built and owned (or formerly owned) by Masonic groups, particularly in the United States. That type of brief introduction, followed by a list of notable buildings called by the name "Masonic Temple", would make a reasonable contribution to human knowledge, consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. What bugs me most about the Masonic building situation is the proliferation of low-content pages with similar scope, including this page, List of Masonic buildings, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), and Masonic Building. Considering the widespread use of the name "Masonic Temple" for naming auditoriums or halls (something that could be considered "common knowledge") and the existence of even one published source documenting the specific meaning (or, rather, apparent absence of a specific meaning) of the name, I think that the topic of "Masonic Temple" rises slightly above the threshold of notability. At the same time, I have yet to see evidence of independent notability for a list of buildings somehow associated with Freemasonry, and I have seen no plausible reason for maintaining both this page and Masonic Temple (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in my desktop dictionary, I find that the definition of "temple" helps to explain "Masonic Temple." Definition 6 says "The headquarters of any of several fraternal orders, especially of the Knights Templar." It would be original research on my part to suggest that the term "Masonic Temple" evolved from names of places such as The Temple (London) (originally the precinct of the Knights Templar), but I imagine that someone has done that research and published it. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel evolution anyway, Masons take their "temple" from Solomon's Temple (as did the Templars), but not via the Templars. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! If that can be reliably sourced, we might get somewhere. I see it discussed in this online book whose reliability I can't judge, and this online article does mention the "Solomon's Temple" relationship for a Masonic Temple in San Diego. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets try this a different way... can any one express what does make the topic of Masonic Temples notable? Can we even identify three traits that are common to all Masonic Temples? Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a page called "Masonic Temple" does not require that all Masonic Temples have traits in common. As I see it, this would essentially be a set-index article that starts with an explanation of the name "Masonic Temple" and then lists a bunch of buildings that have that name. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... lets start with that... do we even have a source to support an explanation of the name "Masonic Temple"? Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I remain completely mystified by this debate. Books about the architecture, symbolism and artwork of Masonic temples are so obviously sources for a page about Masonic temples that I can't even find the words to argue with Blueboar. What do you want the books to be about? In my mind, this is no different from a page about "churches" as a general category. It is self-evidently a notable subject, and Blueboar has provided sources which, in his own words, do adequate justice to the topic, despite what he seems to think.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings are/were owned by the freemasons.
The buildings were built by the freemasons, or their construction was primarily financed by the freemasons.
The freemasons meet at these buildings.
The buildings often feature masonic symbols in their architecture and decorations.

There's four. Satisfied yet? Didn't think so. SnottyWong yak 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True.. In fact I would say that this is the only common trait between these buildings. But that raises the next question... is there is a source that mentions this fact? Another question: does being owned by the Freemasons make something notable? I don't think so.
Not true... many Masonic Temples were originally private houses or commercial properties that the Masons bought...for example: Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio).
Not completely true... for example: Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island)... not one single lodge ever met in this building. But I will admit that is an anomaly as the intent was for Masons to meet in it... next question: do you have a source that says Masons meet in these buildings?
Not true... Sometimes they do, but more frequently they don't... for example: Masonic Temple (Jacksonville, Florida).

Two out of three (or four)... so you've guessed right... not satisfied. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, maybe you need to realise that times have moved on since the traditional Aristotelian necessary and sufficient conditions. Prototype theory, for example, applies to many more real world definitions and doesn't require each condition to be satisfied to define something. Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close Sounds like there is a consensus that a list-article of Masonic buildings is acceptable, but there are two of them, the longer-standing List of Masonic buildings and this current "Masonic Temple" article whose list section was started as a copy of that, with the deletion of red-link entries (which I believe were/are all notable places). This current article also received a mostly unsourced development of the concept of "Masonic Temple" which I submit could be stated in one or two sentences in both the Freemasonry and List of Masonic buildings articles. Since there are complaints on several related Talk pages that "Masonic Temple" is an inappropriate term (possibly U.S.-centric, possibly non-politically-correct by current Mason views, other), and since some/many of the significant Masonic buildings are actually named Masonic Lodge or Masonic Hall or Masonic Building or otherwise, anyhow, it seems best to stick with the long-standing article List of Masonic buildings, to resolve that it shall be a list of significant ones with significance to be continually defined at its Talk page, to close this AFD as a redirect to Freemasonry or that list-article, and then later consider at Talk:List of Masonic buildings a possible rename to "List of Masonic Temples, Lodges, and Halls" which has been suggested. Or it could be renamed even to "Masonic Temple", or otherwise, but later after more development of individual articles and development of the list-article to include photos and descriptions and allow for a more informed decision by editors who have actually developed the topic. Orlady and Blueboar have repeatedly expressed concern that the categories and the disambiguation pages overlap with the list-articles, and they do, but I think that is a non-issue, because by wp:CLN and wp:PURPLIST and much precedent and practice, it is okay and good to have alternative, complementary navigation systems. The disambiguation pages are needed to help readers looking for places named exactly "Masonic Temple" or exactly "Masonic Building" etc., including a few which are notable for non-Masonic-associated reasons and will not make the cut to be included in the List of Masonic buildings. The disambiguation pages have already been tested with AFDs already, too; it will not be further productive to try to delete them in favor of a lit-article/Set-index-article that has been proven to be subject to deletions and passionate argument. The disambiguation is technical and objective and should be left to disambiguation-focused editors in a supporting, secondary, technical type role, separate from the actual content development of individual articles and list-articles with changing inclusion standards. Whether there should be three or four separate disambiguation pages for the places named narrowly, or one merged one (which i think goes against the preference of most disambiguation-focussed editors), is a technical question of optimal disambiguation structure that need not really concern most editors present here. Just like how to set up categories is a technical matter that not all need to concern themselves with. By the way I appreciate that Orlady has done some development of the category system. I have started up some of the individual building articles and added a bit to the list-article. Another editor or two has expressed interest or started developing some of the related articles. In these discussions some information has come forward on sources and examples of good, culturally significant examples. Let's close this now as I describe here, and allow interested editors to work forward in developing the content. --doncram (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you can not express what makes the topic notable either... so you want to end the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to end the discussion, which is not productive. The deletionists are i think outvoted, and should let wikipedia-building proceed. Actually i don't mind if "Masonic Temple" as an article is kept to describe the apparently well-documented internal design/architecture of a Masonic temple/lodge/meetingplace/building/hall, and possibly also exterior architecture, as a supplement to the list-article "List of Masonic buildings". My proposal is mainly that the list should be in the olderList of Masonic buildings article. Any list here is a wp:Contentfork of that. Comments on whether the list portion of this current "Masonic Temple" article should be dropped from here, in favor of the "List of Masonic buildings" article, would resolve this. There does seem to be apparent consensus (some objections notwithstanding) that the concept of a "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic temple" is notable. I guess i favor now Close with keep but drop the list from here in favor of List of Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Doncram's interpretation that "there is a consensus that a list-article of Masonic buildings is acceptable." As I have stated at the other AfD, I am unconvinced that there is any encyclopedic purpose in publishing a list of buildings that have some sort of ill-defined association with Freemasonry -- which is what List of Masonic buildings is. Rather, I think there is a useful purpose to be served by an article that explains the term "Masonic Temple" (the article and tis discussion has finally started to give me some inkling of what that explanation should consist of) and provides a set-index-article list of individual entities named "Masonic Temple."

Further, regardless of what the consensus might be, after many weeks of haggling about these articles (particularly between Doncram and Blueboar), I think it is very important for an uninvolved administrator to carefully review both of these AfDs in tandem before closing them. The principal disputants should not be announcing a consensus. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with most of what you say, and your preference that the list-article should be at "Masonic Temple". But, you are within the consensus that there should be a list-article. I have stated why i think the list-article should be the original one which is located at List of Masonic buildings and which i think has more content and relevant editing history and even a better name; we have to agree to disagree about which place it should be located at. --doncram (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I do not support a list-article. I support a set-index article. There is a large difference: a list-article indicates that there is some sort of notable relationship connecting the list elements, whereas a set-index article indicates only that the elements share the same (or essentially the same) name. --Orlady (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no great distinction. The wp:SIA states "Set index articles should follow the style described in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists", which just goes on to describe types of list-articles. I think a stand-alone list is any type of list that is not embedded in a different article. However, i would oppose anyone insisting that the numerous notable Masonic temple-type places which are named "Masonic Hall" or otherwise cannot be included within the list-article, as editors following your intent for the list-article might reason, so i reiterate that the original List of Masonic buildings is the better-named. --doncram (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A set index article assume that there is a reasonably finite set to index. The set of buildings named "Masonic Temple" runs into the tens of thousands. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the first sentence. About the second sentence, so what? The list-articles under discussion are lists of notable ones, not every stupid meetingplace. And, if the notable ones run into the thousands (which I doubt), then the list will be split by geography or by some other sensible approach. --doncram (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wp:SIA says "A set index article is not a disambiguation page". What I find odd is that the Masonic Temple (disambiguation) article also contains a long list of temples. Do we really need three such lists? Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think no one wants 3 lists. Disambiguation pages are not list-articles though. A set index article is a list-article and can include descriptions, footnotes, pics, while a dab page cannot. I think a narrow list-article, as Orlady wants, which is labelled as a set-index article, can substitute for a disambiguation page though. What Orlady wants, if i understand correctly, is:

Proposal A (doncram's understanding of Orlady's views)

Keep Freemasonry general article
Keep Masonic Building, a disambiguation page
Keep Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), a disambiguation page
Keep Masonic Temple as a list-article labelled as a set-index article, but allowing only Masonic halls named "Masonic Temple" and perhaps close variations like West End Masonic Temple, but not allowing Mason's Hall (Richmond, Virginia), the oldest U.S. Masonic hall in the U.S., and not allowing any other Masonic hall whose article name is Masonic Hall or Masonic Lodge or named otherwise
Delete List of Masonic buildings
Delete Masonic Temple (disambiguation) (well, actually it would be recreated as a redirect to Masonic Temple)
???? about Masonic Lodge
???? about Masonic Hall, a disambiguation page I think is also needed, and just created

I don't happen to think that it is tenable to allow a list-article on only "Masonic temples named 'Masonic Temple' only" and otherwise don't think that is comprehensive proposal meeting Wikipedia guidelines, and serving editors/readers. That proposal A involves keeping one list-article (the Masonic Temple SIA) and 2 or 3 dabs.

What i have argued for, i think more or less consistently, is:

Proposal B-1 (doncram's main proposal)

Keep Freemasonry general article, and add as necessary for it to provide definition of what is a Masonic Temple / Hall / and Lodge
Keep Masonic Building, a disambiguation page of places named exactly that or close variation
Keep Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), a disambiguation page (but move it to "Masonic Lodge")
Keep Masonic Temple (disambiguation), a disambiguation page (but move it to "Masonic Temple")
Keep Masonic Hall, a disambiguation page
Keep List of Masonic buildings, as a list-article of notable Masonic buildings of any name, and as the original list, only recently copied partially into new Masonic Temple list-article
Delete Masonic Temple, as its content is naturally covered in "Freemasonry" and in "List of Masonic buildings"
Delete Masonic Lodge, as its content is naturally covered in "Freemasonry" and in "List of Masonic buildings"

This proposal B involves keeping one list-article and 4 dabs. --doncram (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fear that Doncram's attempt to simplify this discussion has complicated it further by adding a bunch of new red-herring topics. I had no clue that the continued existence and/or scope of articles like Freemasonry and Masonic Lodge were at issue here. Can we please agree to discuss ONLY Masonic Temple, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), and List of Masonic buildings? --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no one proposes deleting the Freemasonry article, and the proposal to delete the Masonic Lodge article does not need to be answered within this AFD. My point with the comprehensive proposals, for this AFD discussion about "Masonic Temple", is that there is no comprehensive proposal on the table which makes sense and which keeps "Masonic Temple" as a list-article. The Proposal A deletes one out of four related dab pages, and restricts the list-article to be essentially "Buildings named exactly Masonic Temple". Would it make sense then to create a new list-article "Masonic Halls named other than Masonic Temple"? I don't think that makes sense, to command a split of the "List of Masonic buildings" list by Masonic Temple vs. other name rather than keeping it whole, or than dividing it eventually by geography or age or something else. Proposal A as i understand it would not allow a large percentage of Masonic halls to be included in any Masonic buildings list-article.

I would also be okay with, call this Proposal B-2, the B-1 proposal amended to Keep the "Masonic Lodge" article and Keep the "Masonic Temple" article in some form defining the term and linking to "List of Masonic buildings" but not itself including a list. --doncram (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion is perhaps one of the best illustrations of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia version of democracy around. Lots of people contributing to discussion of a subject that they don't understand and using superficial google counts as a decision tool.

This debate is about the subject Masonic temple, not Masonic buildings, Masonic lodges or Freemasonry. The four are different things and even considering a discussion about convergence is ill-thought through, it's also in completely the wrong place, if it's a serious suggestion take it to the project page and discuss it there.

To be specific:

A Masonic Temple is the room within which a Lodge meets. Many buildings, particularly in the US, also use it in the name however that is fairly restricted to the US. There are a number of sources that talk about the decoration, furnishings and layout of temples although as above I'm unconvinced that they support this article, more likely articles about the individual furnishings.
A Masonic Lodge is what comes into existence when a group of Masons meet and formalise that meeting through ritual. The Lodge is an organisational grouping and may meet in any one of a number of places. The point is confused when the article in question is crufted up with photographs of buildings and bluntly I'd cull the lot of them now but given the behaviours demonstrated by a number of editors I'd immediately get reverted along with lots of finger pointing and accusations of bad faith.
A Masonic building doesn't appear to have a sourced definition although we have a number of arbitrary opinions expressed. Peraonslly I'm still not convinced that subject is notable but the closing admin totted up the votes and made a decision according to the majority. Even where the buildings have the name Temple this is probably the place to discuss them.
A Masonic Hall is a name used for a building and the idea that it needs its own article is laughable.

I would suggest some judicious use of redirects, there is little point in multiple disambiguation pages discussing the same things.

ALR (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is helpful. ALR uses Masonic Temple to refer to the interior room, and I think that argues for the Masonic Temple article being about that, and dropping the list of notable buildings that are misnamed (according to Masonic terminology) as "Masonic Temple". ALR uses Masonic building to refer to buildings and I think that agrees with keeping List of Masonic buildings named exactly that. I agree with ALR that the Masonic Lodge article should not be confusingly cluttered with pics of buildings named "Masonic Lodge" or named "Masonic Temple", both of which are misnamed according to official Masonic terminology. The Lodge article could carry a picture of the membership of a given lodge, like a graduating class-style picture of all the members at some event, which would properly convey that a lodge is a group of people. ALR does not seem warm to the disambiguation pages, but those are not articles and are simply needed to assist navigation to wikipedia articles of places named (or misnamed) exactly that (and 2 AFDs about them have been closed in favor of Keep already). So I interpret ALR's comments as most consistent with Proposal B-2, including with dropping the list of buildings included in the current "Masonic Temple" article. Also since the List of Masonic buildings AFD has been closed in favor of keep (no consensus otherwise), it is even more clear that the redundant list of buildings here should be dropped. --doncram (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The temples are notable parts of a notable organization. The discussion to merge and/or redirect is happening elsewhere. No reason to delete though. Dream Focus 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD isn't cleanup. It seems pretty evident that the various articles we have on this subject right now (including the list article) contain enough referenced material to do something encyclopedic with, even if large chunks of it end up getting merged to freemasonry or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 :::::::::Thanks, that is helpful.  ALR uses Masonic Temple to refer to the interior room, and I think that argues for the Masonic Temple article being about that, and dropping the list of notable buildings that are misnamed (according to Masonic terminology) as "Masonic Temple".  ALR uses Masonic building to refer to buildings and I think that agrees with keeping [[List of Masonic buildings]] named exactly that.  I agree with ALR that the Masonic Lodge article should not be confusingly cluttered with pics of buildings named "Masonic Lodge" or named "Masonic Temple", both of which are misnamed according to official Masonic terminology.  The Lodge article could carry a picture of the membership of a given lodge, like a graduating class-style picture of all the members at some event, which would properly convey that a lodge is a group of people.  ALR does not seem warm to the disambiguation pages, but those are not articles and are simply needed to assist navigation to wikipedia articles of places named (or misnamed) exactly that (and 2 AFDs about them have been closed in favor of Keep already).  So I interpret ALR's comments as most consistent with Proposal B-2, including with dropping the list of buildings included in the current "Masonic Temple" article.  Also since the [[List of Masonic buildings]] AFD has been closed in favor of keep (no consensus otherwise), it is even more clear that the redundant list of buildings here should be dropped. --[[User:Doncram|doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' The temples are notable parts of a notable organization. The discussion to merge and/or redirect is happening elsewhere.  No reason to delete though. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>]]''' 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
+* AfD isn't cleanup. It seems pretty evident that the various articles we have on this subject right now (including the list article) contain enough referenced material to do ''something'' encyclopedic with, even if large chunks of it end up getting merged to [[freemasonry]] or the like. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)