Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gran Logia de la República de Venezuela

: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. Sceptre (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Gran Logia de la República de Venezuela]]=

{{ns:0|O}}

:{{la|Gran Logia de la República de Venezuela}} ([{{fullurl:Gran Logia de la República de Venezuela|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gran Logia de la República de Venezuela}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

NN group. Speedy A7 was declined as Freemasons are apparently inherently notable (which they aren't, and this is also not the case here). The definitely notable Grand Lodge (because it is the largest) would be the mainstream Grand Lodge in Venezuela recognized by United Grand Lodge of England - it has 125 lodges and was founded in 1824. Its website is given as the [http://www.granlogia.org.ve/ source link] in this article, which claims it as a liberal Grand Lodge. However, as it appears in the list of UGLE-recognized lodges [http://www.ugle.org.uk/provinces/olodges/samerica.htm here], it absolutely cannot be a liberal lodge. What this article is talking about is a smaller Grand Lodge recognized by the Grand Orient de France in a different tradition. The problem is that I can't figure out which group it is. It might be [http://www.glrbv.org.ve/ this group] founded in 2005, or it could be [http://www.members.tripod.com/gran_logia/ this group] founded in 1824 that has 40 lodges, despite the Tripod hosting. In any event, the Grand Lodge named here is from a different tradition than was assumed by the decliner, and since the article isn't even sure what it's talking about, notability cannot be asserted. MSJapan (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. A grand lodge has intrinsic notability. Is this even serious. Just because a group is out of amity with the UGLE it should not be suppressed. JASpencer (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Further Comment For the pattern of behaviour behind series of deletions look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLIPSAS. JASpencer (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the one who declined the speedy nomination, I want to clarify that I explicitly did not say that masonic lodges are "apparently inherently notable", as the nominator claims. What [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&diff=231025529&oldid=231024588 I did say] was "At the very least this warrants an AfD since WikiProject Freemasonry is active enough that there's a reasonable chance someone will be able to clean it up; by their nature, any national masonic lodge (even the splinter groups) will likely be significant enough that {{tl|db-club}} (which is intended for articles on "two kids in their shed playing GTA who think it would be cool to have a Wikipedia page to list their high scores" type clubs) is unlikely to be appropriate", and I certainly stand by that comment. – iridescent 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I didn't misquote you - your decline comment said "The _Freemasons_ are an "unremarkable club"?" MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep A grand lodge is notable, even in Caracas -- and sorry to be contradictory, but this doesn't even warrant AfD. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Something is still very wrong here - according to the Gran Logia de la Republica de Venezuela website link given by the article, this is the UGLE-recognized GL (there's an obit notice for Francisco Liz, who is listed in the official 2008 UGLE-recognized jurisdiction book as Grand Master in 2006). That means that while it's now potentially sourced, it is absolutely not the GL the article claimed it was (associated with CLIPSAS and the liberal tradition; the website lists the groups it is affiliated with, and CLIPSAS isn't there). This is correctable, and clears up most of the AfD, but there are still no sources outside of the site itself, so there's still an RS problem. MSJapan (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::That's because there are (at least) two Grand Lodges http://www.glrbv.org.ve/ and http://www.granlogia.org.ve/ JASpencer (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Then I'm going to point the article towards the GL the EL was for, and that was the UGLE-recognized, granlogia site body. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I strongly disagree with the notion that all Grand Lodges have "intrinsic notability". I have no opinion on this article because I can't read Spanish. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - the article does not come close to passing WP:ORG, which repeatedly calls for reliable sources that are independant of the subject to establish notability. The only source seems to be the organization's own website. The article should have been speedy deleted under A7... as it does not indicate why the organization is notable or significant in any way (the article simply states that the body exists and is based in Caracas, which is not an indication of notability or significance). I think people are assuming that anything named "Grand Lodge" must be notable. Some are, but a lot are not. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be some confusion about WP:CSD A7 here. Calling yourself "Grand Lodge" doesn't mean it must be notable, but that's not what CSD is about; calling yourself "Grand Lodge" is an assertion of notability because it means the organisation is claiming to be a representative national body. AfD is the appropriate place for this; if the AfD sets a clear precedent, you can consider WP:PROD (not CSDA7) on similar articles. – iridescent 15:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment to Iridescent... I think you are making a faulty assumption about Grand Lodges. Not every Grand Lodge claims to be a national/state wide body. Many do... perhaps even most do... but not all. Some claim to simply have jurisdiction over the few lodges that they have chartered. Others don't even claim that, but became Grand Lodges to assert a claim that some other Grand Lodge doesn't have jurisdiction over them. In other words... it is complicated. Just wanted to clear that up. I do see how your comment relates in this case. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can see Iridescent's point about declining an A7, although I think this one's right on the line given the sparsity of information provided. It certainly appears to fail WP:ORG, due to no visible coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca t | c 16:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • :Per the improvements by JASpencer it seems that this organisation is probably notable. Given Jclemens's worthy point that WP:RS mentions of this may mostly be restricted to non-internet-accessible local sources, I'm prepared to retract my delete argument. Still not entirely sure this is worth keeping, but consider me neutral at this point. ~ mazca t | c 23:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as "grand" suggests notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Ecoleetage.Dwain (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no doubt that secondary written sources exist to meet WP:N--whether they're accessible to us on the Internet, is, of course, a different matter. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment: a Google book search does not seem to support that assumption. I see lots of stuff on other Grand Lodges in Venezuela, and a lot of stuff about Masonry in Venezuela in general, but I don't see anything that discusses this organization. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment - My Spanish isn't what it used to be, but I think JAS's edits are inaccurate, which illustrates a language problem with sources as well that should be considered, unless someone wants to do a fair amount of translation.MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view.

  • Keep We should decline to enter into controversies about the precedence or authenticity of various fraternal groups as a justification for keeping articles or not. . This particular one seems to have enough sourcing to warrant an article. DGG (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • :All the sources currently on the page are direct links to the organisation's own website... is that really 'enough sourcing'? Other arguments can certainly be made for keeping this article but I wouldn't have thought the sources were one of them. ~ mazca t | c 12:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::No, because WP:ORG requires sources that are independant of the subject to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Zef (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a "grand" lodge over 121 lodges, it seems significant. We should give benefit of doubt considering the inherent systemic bias of English Wikipedia in locating an abundance of sources for article subjects based in non-English-speaking countries. --MPerel 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.