Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John's Lodge

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. leaning keep. The possible future deletion of articles does not mean the dab is deleted now. Also as nom itself notes, there are other places in the world called St. John's Lodge, who may have articles even when/if the lodges are deleted. TravellingCari 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Lodge

Sent to MfD, which was apparently not the right place, so moved here. Unhelpful/unmaintainable dab page. In Freemasonry (which is what the dab focuses on now), almost every UGLE branch Masonic jurisdiction in the world has a St. John's Lodge or two, none of which have articles (and generally don't meet WP:N except for a few exceptions). Additionally, Google shows plenty of other types of places called "St. John's Lodge" - B&Bs, hotels, sporting lodges, etc. to the tune of 18,000 hits. MSJapan (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep The solution is to expand this to include all the notable St. John's Lodges not delete it. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to echo JoshuaZ - this needs editing and expanding, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with option to recreate at a later time). The point of a dab page is to list articles that could all have the same title. Unless we have articles on the varous St. John's Lodges (masonic or otherwise) there is no point in having a dab. We will not have articles on the Masonic St. John's Lodges, since according to WP:ORG, local chapters of international organizations are not considered notable. That leaves us with the B&Bs, hotels, sporting lodges etc. I suppose some of them might be notable... but at this point we don't have any articles on them. If and when we do have articles, we can recreate a dab for them. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blueboar's commentary on local chapters.--Vidkun (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Looking into this a bit more, I find that none of the three St. John's Lodges that were listed on the dab page had articles about them. I have removed the two Masonic Lodges (as not being notable). I have created a stub for the house in Regent's Park, London, that is owned by the Sultan of Brunai (I assume that a big house in a public park in London is considered notable... but if not, the article can be deleted.) We now have a dab page that lists one article. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, JASpencer (the creator of the dab page) has asked me to hold off on removing the Lodges from the dab page until this AfD is determined, so they are back on. Please just note that none of the Masonic Lodges are considered notable enough for an article according to WP:ORG, so we are still dealing with a dab page for only one article. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that until such time until there are sufficient articles about St Johns Lodges that actually demonstrate notability there is little justification, so my preference is for Delete

ALR (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't want to make this a general AfD on the masonic lodges, but my understanding is that individual chapters of an organization can be notable if they have independent notability. The Masonic lodges listed include the one that owns the George Washington Inaugural Bible, as well as the oldest operating lodge in the United States. I'd hazard a guess that these are likely notable by themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited... owning a notable bible does not make its owner notable. Neither does claiming to being the oldest lodge in continual opperation, especially when the claim is not substantiated by reliable sources.Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the point, there may be an opportunity for individual lodges to be sufficiently notable to create an article about them, the purpose of a dab page is not to create a list of possible future articles. The cart has been put so far in front of the horse in this instance, the horse is going to have difficulty finding it.

ALR (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (As creator). There are already two pages that it links to (albeit St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire is currently in an AfD) and I've just put up two redirects, although they may be challenged. "St. John's" often seems to be the title for the first lodge founded by many Grand Lodges, for example Massachsuetts, New York and New Hampshire, tend to be in important cities and so tend to attract more than their fair share of politicians, etc. If I had any hope of being listened to I would suggest that the nominator temporarily removed the AfD until the status of the links that the page points to is decided. As at least one article it points to is not up for deletion then at the very least this will end up a redirect so. JASpencer (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the other AfDs/RfDs are completed, and then delete if there a fewer than 2 Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to note that JASpencer's recent additions are all to redirects and not to articles. Those redirects are extremely questionable (for example, redirecting St. John's Lodge, (New York) to George Washington Inaugural Bible) and will be raised for discussion at RfD.

In other words, he has created questionable redirects and linked to them on a questionable dab page, to make it seem as if the dab page is legitimatly pointing to articles about the various St. John's Lodges, when in fact the links are redirected to sub-secions of other articles, on other topics, which contain passing refferences to a St. John's Lodge. Gaming the system? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, I would like to refer you to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CALM. A course in good manners may also be a good idea. I'm not sure why you are getting so het up about a disambiguation page but the redirect was created because St. John's lodge was mentioned in Wikipedia in an article created a long time ago. Not only may St. John's lodge refer to the gang in New York, but it does. That's why there's a redirect. It looks like you're either over-reacting or simply trying to smear another editor. I know you don't do apologies, but I think that one is in order here. JASpencer (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will stop the whole sorry episode. When I first created the page it was done as a redirect to the Bible. The reason I made it into a disambiguation page is that I found mentions in other places and thought a disambiguation would be more appropriate. So unless I have stunning foresight, the plan was not to create a redirection to save a disambiguation page that did not even exist. JASpencer (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Blueboar, redirects are disambiguate-able too. The are in no way "illegitimate" article. Indeed, some disambiguation pages have nothing but redirects to subsections, or unlinked entries with section links in the descriptions. Perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with raising them at RfD, and if they are deleted and the entries linking to subsection don't need to be disambiguatend, then the dab page can (and should) be removed. But not first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there is no evidence provided to think this is not useful or the links cannot be considered notable in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note - its a disambig, so all you need are two included pages that are notable for there to be notability enough to warrant a disambig) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem... we only have one page on something that is notable - St. John's Lodge (London), all the rest are non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2008

So you say right now, but the community has not determined such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2008 (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.