Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix 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 keep. and repurpose the article to be more about the building. —Darkwind (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix 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 indication of notability beyond the organization itself, most masonic lodge are not notable, content is about the lodge but seems to have little or no interest beyond its members, see WP:NOT
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 17:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "No indication of notability" is pretty much contradicted by the claim that they are the oldest lodge in Sunderland and the second oldest in Durham. The fact that their meeting hall is believed to be the "oldest purpose-built Masonic Temple in the world" and "the longest continuous usage of a Masonic meeting place in the world" (and is Grade I listed) means that this nomination really does not seem to have any merit. There have been a number of AfDs over the years that have said that notable lodges are not notable because they are lodges, and this is another one of them. Svanslyck has been trying to delete entries for other notable lodges (such as Areopagus Lodge). JASpencer (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - We've had this article more or less sitting around for years, because the only person who had any information on the organization was the editor that started it and whatever IP it was that added a List of Masters. As JASpencer notes above, the building is notable. The Lodge, however, is not. The building is not "the Lodge"; "the Lodge" is the members (as is clearly explained in the Freemasonry article). This means that the Lodge can meet wherever it wants, and just happens to have a building to meet in, but they are separate entities. I would also note that the list of Masters of the Lodge I removed is non-notable, not on a public website, and a primary, limited circulation, and ever-changing source. BLP, privacy of non-notable people, NOTDIR, and list maintainability are all issues with just that section. The article as it stands, however, cannot decide whether it is about the building or the Lodge, and notability is not inherited from one to the other. The members, by the way, did not build the building themselves. I'm skeptical of notability based on age in a given local area - somebody's first if you limit the area enough. The first in a country is probably OK, but when it gets down to first in a locality, it is easy to make someone first if one makes the area small enough. Outside large cities in most countries outside of England, almost every Lodge is the oldest in its town, because most towns only have one. Those Lodges that are the first often have many other claims to fame besides age, like the four founding lodges of UGLE, or St. John's Lodge #1 in New York, who has the Washington Bible. I'm not seeing that level of GNG satisfying information here, and as there are no books about the Lodge, the average reader cannot find such. MSJapan (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They founded that hall, they had been around for 30 years before that. They've been around for 250 years. As far as being the oldest in Sunderland not being notable, that would be fine if Sunderland was some small village, but it's a city. JASpencer (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Being the oldest lodge in a given city is not that notable... Every major city in the UK has multiple Masonic Lodges... and one of them is going to be the "oldest". It would be different if this were the oldest lodge in England, or if it had an important impact on the founding or growth of Freemasonry as a whole. But I don't see any evidence for that with this particular lodge. As for the tie with the building... It is a bit disingenuous to say that they "founded the hall"... from what I understand, they were one of several lodges that contributed to its founding. I agree that the building may be notable, but that does not mean that the individual lodges that meet in it are notable. (Note for those who don't know Masonic jargon... a "lodge" is the Masonic equivalent of a "local chapter" in other fraternal organizations.) Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. If you're accusing someone else of lying or being "a bit disingenuous" look up WP:CIVIL. The article cliearly states that they were itenerant until they had the hall, it was clearly built for them and if it was built for others as well, there are no other lodges mentioned. It may be the case that a number of lodges met there over the time, but we're not talking about them we're talking about the oldest continuing lodge in Sunderland. JASpencer (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and repurpose -- I am not wholly convinced of the notability of the lodge, but the building where they meet (being grade 1 listed) is clearly notable. I would therefore suggest that the article be renamed to Masonic Hall, Sunderland (or such like) and that the article be restructured as one on the hall and the lodges that meet in it. If the lodge has had a continuous existence since before 1785, it is perfectly reasonbable to state that they founded the hall. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and repurpose I can get behind Peter's suggestion, as that separation is the main point of my delete vote anyhow, so I will strike my original vote. MSJapan (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that, so long as the article itself is appropriately edited, if necessary, to discuss the building and not the lodge. Note, the talk link in my signature is currently broken; I dunno way. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 21:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree to a rename and re-purpose as well. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a seperate article for the building is fine, but the lodge is still itself notable as something that has been in continuous existence for 250 years. The point about the building was simply to point out that the rationale for the AfD was boilerplate (no indication of notability). JASpencer (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability within Freemasonry, even if true, is not the test. 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. * * * Qualifying published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service." Notability_(organizations_and_companies). RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 13:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you consider that the fraternity has lodges that are 400 years old, a lodge that is a mere 250 years old is still "the new kid", and might not be considered all that notable. But in any case... age does not determine notability... being "first" in an area does not determine notability... what determines notability is whether reliable sources that are independent of the topic bother to discuss the lodge. If those sources note the lodge's age, or the fact that it was "first" in a given area... then (and only then) do those facts become valid claims of notability. Without sources they are simply bits of Masonic trivia. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In England the average age of an active lodge is not going to be over 75 years, and in America it is going to be less than that. That argument doesn't work. JASpencer (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope... In the US the average age is probably more in the range of 100-150 (Freemasonry had a huge growth spurt after the Civil War). In England it is probably more in the range of 150-200. However, the average age of current lodges does not tell the whole story... In 1755 (when Phoenix lodge was chartered) there were probably several hundred lodges in existence throughout the UK (the claim made in the article, that Phoenix "is one of the 50 oldest in the UK" is not sourced, but I suspect it comes from the lodge itself... and I suspect it is a typical bit of Masonic puffery... only accurate if you ignore the many, many lodges that existed prior to 1755, but which subsequently shut down and turned in their charters for one reason or another). Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repurpose as above. Grade I listed buildings are inherently notable. The building actually appears to be called Phoenix Lodge,[1] so the current title is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... although I would entitle the article with the same disambiguation as is in the source: "Phoenix Lodge (Freemasons Hall)". Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not honestly sure that's necessary. We don't usually disambiguate unnecessarily. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per previous discussion (perhaps not on this page), consensus appears to be that where the article is about the building, but the title is such-and-such lodge, some sort of qualifying statement at the top of the article is necessary to resolve the discrepancy (there is a distinction within Freemasonry that a lodge is not the building it meets in). RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may be, but it really depends what the common name of the building is. If it's just Phoenix Lodge then that's what we should call the article, seeing as we don't have any other articles by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 3 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.