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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Temple[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Masonic Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I closed the previous AFD as delete based on strong assertions by the original author and other editors that the sources provided were tangential and did not discuss the subject of masonic temples in detail. Following discussion on my talk page, I have decided to relist this as it is not entirely clear that this assessment of the sources is correct. As this is essentially a procedural relisting I am offering no opinion on whether this article should stand. Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the comment was made, and per consensus as i understand it, I deleted the list of masonic buildings from the Masonic Temple page, deferring to more complete, older list at List of Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary issue is that this article is overly duplicative of List of Masonic buildings, and Masonic Temple (disambiguation) and Category:Masonic buildings. At the previous AfD (and at a related one for List of Masonic buildings, it was clear that there was general agreement that there is no need for multiple articles that consist of essentially the exact same list of buildings, and that a merger might be an acceptable alternative. The problem is that we can not reach consensus as to which of these duplicative lists should be the target of the merger... which list should remain, and which should be cut. Everyone seems more interested in "protecting" the version that they have worked on, rather than resolving the issue of over-duplication. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you were the original author is irrelevant, you don't own the article. Nominating articles for deletion because the merging discussions have hit a roadblock is equally disruptive to the "protective" behavior of other users that you describe. There is no doubt that there is far too much redundant information in the articles you mentioned, but nominating them all for deletion is not the solution. Hopefully after all of this nonsense blows over, the editors who were originally discussing the redundancy in these articles can resume those discussions and come to an amicable agreement. I, for one, am sick of arguing about these articles and frankly don't care enough about them to continue arguing. Good luck. SnottyWong chatter 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disbelieve my eyes to see that Blueboar is yet again asserting overlap between dabs, categories, and list-articles is justification to remove one. Policy, guidelines, consensus, such as embodied at wp:CLN, has many times been explained to Blueboar. I therefore also tend to wonder about Blueboar's dismissal of the relevance of sources he has consulted on the topic of Masonic temples. I imagine i would read them quite differently.
Further about the sources, Blueboar is not in a position to know what the sources on individual Masonic buildings say about the general topic of Masonic Temples, because he does not have access to them (see ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings). I expect the NRHP application documents and other sources that will be used eventually to develop the individual articles will often be good, relevant sources on the general topic, and/or point to other good sources. Architectural historians will tend to write about how a given building is unusual or typical for its type, and they have to describe the type to make such comparisons. Most articles about notable Masonic buildings have not yet been developed. There is literally tons of info out there about this topic. --doncram (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of the record - "Blueboar is not in a position to know what the sources on individual Masonic buildings say about the general topic of Masonic Temples, because he does not have access to them"... That is a blatant distortion of the truth... if you read the previous AfD and the discussions at these various pages you will see that I am the only editor who actually does have access to these books (the conversation Doncram refers to is about one specific website, which I do not have access to) and I am the only editor who has actually bothered to go to a library and look at what these sources say. Everyone else is assuming that these are reliable sources based on running key word searches on google, or the fact that some of these sources have the words "Masonic Temple" in their title. I agree that these assumptions are logical... but, to put it bluntly, the assumptions are wrong. The reality is that the sources do not support what is stated in the article, and they do not support the idea that the topic of "Masonic Temples" is a notable topic.
As for the NRHP, the fact that the NRHP lists a few dozen Masonic Temples (out of the thousands that exist in the US alone) does not support the idea that general topic of "Masonic Temples" is a notable ... it merely supports the idea that the specific individual buildings (that happen to be Masonic Temples) are notable... Indeed many of the buildings listed under the name "Masonic Temple" in the NRHP are notable for something other than their connection to Freemasonry. A good example is the Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio)... before being purchased by the Masons, this building was the private home of the Kent family, who founded the town of Kent, Ohio. The building is historical for that reason and is notable because it is a good example of Victorian era Italianate architecture. That is why it is on the NRHP, not the fact that it currently happens to belong to a Masonic Lodge. It's listing on the NRHP does not support the notability of "Masonic Lodges" in general... as a topic. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor Moore's book on the subject seems quite adequate for our purpose. This is not some Dan Brown potboiler but an award-winning work from a reputable historian. Your objection to it seems to be that it focusses upon the interiors of Masonic buildings rather than their exteriors. This seems a feeble objection as it may well be that the external configuration of a building is not an essential feature. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my comments... isn't a queston of internal vs external configuration. The issue is whether the source discusses the topic of the article... ie the buildings we are calling "Masonic Temples". I know Will Moore and his book well (I even assisted him in some of his early research, back when he was currator of the Livingston Library in NYC). The focus of the book is on Masonic symbology... as it appears in the decoration of (some) lodge meeting rooms and in Masonic regalia and jewelry. Yes, it is a very reliable source on such things... The problem is that the Masonic Temple article is not about the symbology that is contained in (some) lodge rooms and jewels (the article does not mention Masonic symbology at all)... the Masonic Temple article is about the buildings themselves (hense the focus on buildings that are in the National Regestry of Historical Places). Sources need to be reliable within the context of the article's topic. Moore's book would be very reliable in the context of an article on Masonic symbology, decoration and regalia... but that isn't the topic of the article in question.
Also, I think people may be confused as to what a "Masonic Temple" actually is. There is no "essential feature" to a Masonic Temple. The term simply means "a building where masons meet". The only thing that all "Masonic Temples" have in common is that somewhere in the building there will be a room with chairs placed along the walls, open space in the middle, and a small table or altar in the center (on which is placed a set of compasses, a square, and a Volume of Sacred Law). That's it. Everything else is superfuluous. Thus, you can turn the local community center into a "Masonic Temple", or you can turn the back room of a local restaraunt into a "Masonic Temple", or you can even turn your house or apartment into a "Masonic Temple"... simply by moving the furnature around. Indeed, In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this is how all lodges met... and there are lodges that still meet this way today. They rent a private space and set up a lodge room. Not every lodge owns its own purpose built "Temple" (yet, where ever a lodge meets, they do so in a "Temple"). Yes, over the centuries most lodges either purchased or built their own buildings in which to meet (easier, because don't have to keep moving the furnature around every time the lodge gathers, you can leave the room set up between meetings)... But whether they meet in a purpose built building or a rented/borrowed space, no two "Masonic Temples" are ever the same in either decoration or configuration. Those lodges that can afford to build own buildings often decorate their meeting room walls with symbolic emblems, murals of allegorical figures, paintings or photographs of their founders, etc. ... or not. What gets put on the walls is unique to each lodge... indeed some leave their walls bare of all decoration so they can rent the room to other organizations on "off nights". The point is, there is nothing that is common between one "Masonic Temple" and another... except for the fact that there is a meeting room. Thus, while we can note facts about one "Masonic Temple" ("XYZ Temple is a prime example of art deco archicture" or "The Masonic Temple in Anytown, Iowa contains murals painted by a notable artist"... etc.) those facts will not be true of any other "Masonic Temple". These facts can make an individual "Masonic Temple" notable... but they do not make "Masonic Temples" notable as a general topic. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no "essential feature" to a Masonic Temple."
Perhaps not. However this topic isn't "The essential features necessary by lore for a Masonic Temple", it's "Those attributes of a Masonic Temple that Masons have chosen to add". This is obviously far broader and richer than their bare minimum. Nor is our article constrained to describe only those features shown by all Temples, but rather the union of features demonstrated by Temples. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) What Andy Dingley said. And, Masonic Temple can clearly indicate either the building or the interior meetingplace, as it is used both ways in common usage. To Blueboar, I interpret your discussion differently: all that you say, if properly sourced, could be part of a proper article on the topic of Masonic temples/halls (that no two are the same, that many use common symbolic decoration inside while some are plain, etc., etc.). The article would describe that and give examples of notable ones that exemplify the various types. It would cover the oldest one in the U.S., in Virginia, and the biggest, in Detroit, and show a few pics of some very plain and simple ones to make the point that not all Masonic temples/halls are grand or notable, which is very well understood by all parties in this discussion. It would be too much to cover all the notable ones in this article, because there are approximately 180 individually NRHP-listed ones, therefore it is useful to have already split out the List of Masonic buildings article which can be linked. Some of the NRHP-listed ones and others having extensive documentation about them (which Blueboar has not seen or consulted, per discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings), will provide additional material for this article on what constitutes Masonic decoration for exterior and interior. For example, this NRHP nomination document for one in Virginia covers how it includes a doorway with symbolic pillars and mentions that the Masonic meeting rooms had to point to the east, among other details describing how architecture can be adapted for the purpose of a Masonic temple/hall.
Bottom-line: We will have to agree to disagree. I believe the clear consensus here is that there are adequate, extensive sources available to cover this topic. I probably won't comment further. --doncram (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key point here is properly sourced. Now the standard of evidence that you expect is somewhat different from the standard of evidence that I expect, however since the decision criteria is number of votes rather than quality of sourcing it's pretty clear what the outcome here is going to be.
As a result there will be a need to try to make a credible article on a subject that is currently undefined, of disputed meaning exacerbated by the lack of any adequate source defining it and reliant on a number of sources that are only tangentially related to it.
ALR (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic seems very clearly defined: masonic temples are "the buildings where Freemasons hold their meetings". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a USian usage, it's uncommon elsewhere where it's generally used to describe the space within which a lodge is formed. A building is mundane bricks and mortar, a temple isn't.
ALR (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should we delete automobile too, because Masons in the UK drive cars instead?
The fact that it's accepted as being a somewhat regional use doesn't make it any less notable. No doubt UK Masons would appreciate articles that explain the sacred mysteries of the stick shift and tailfin no less than an explanation of Temples and that business with the G. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you're going to be facetious about it. Automobile=car, building =/= temple.
In any case, as observed the issue is sourcing. If you're voting for an address book as establishing notability then that's entirely up to you, I have a higher standard of evidence.
ALR (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2010 (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.
More