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 delete. No prejudice against creation of an article about the building if the structure is notable beyond its use by the Masons. RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Lodge No. 85

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Rational: Seems to me that this fails WP:GNG. There is a single referenced source - a 1929 book from what appears to be a reliable publisher. I've searched for additional sources - I found lots of mentions in directories, trivial mentions in news articles, and what appear to be press releases in the local press, but nothing significant and independent. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Maybe its because most Masonic lodges tend to shy away from the press, but I found much the same -- the closest thing to news was about some work they did fixing up a graveyard in Stamford. I can't see how this could pass GNG unless someone has sources that aren't on the Internet. Markvs88 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in this post on my talk page, Finch1640 (who seems to be connected to this lodge) indicates that the existing source on the page was written by a member of the lodge. I have no way of determining whether that is true, but if so it does call the independence of the single cited source into question, and cast further doubt on the notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic could be more clearly Wikipedia-notable if it focused upon covering the historic building(s) of the Masonic lodge, including the Issac Mead building which is a contributing building in the National Register of Historic Places-listed Greenwich Avenue Historic District. Per description by User:Finch1640 at Commons file "Isaac Mead Building.jpg", a photo scanned from a 1926 book: "The Isaac Mead building still stands in Greenwich today. It was the meeting place for Acacia Lodge for a good period of time in the second half of the 19th-century. Uploaded: 7 February 2018 by Finch1640. Source:1926 book on Masonry in Greenwich". I found my way to that from searching at Commons for Acacia Lodge, then browsing in Greenwich historic district articles. The NRHP document provides not a whole lot about it, but the district includes "ISAAC L. MEAD BUILDING, 1878 / Tudor Revival remodeling, 1910" Its address is "2-8 Greenwich Avenue (same as 6 West Putnam)". In the district, "the earliest surviving brick building is the Isaac Mead Building, which occupies the sharply angled corner at the head of the district." The building is shown in Photo #7 of accompanying photos.
Redirect to List of Masonic buildings in the United States#Isaac Mead Building is an option less than deletion, which would be appropriate if the article is not further developed. If the article is further developed, then "Keep". Note the article could be improved by adding an NRHP contributing building infobox. I justed added the lodge to the list-article, anyhow. Keeping the edit history at the redirect would enable re-creation, if/when more coverage of the historic lodge is uncovered. --Doncram (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BRANCH. While the Issac Mead Building may be notable enough for an article... the article under discussion is about the local chapter of Freemasons that (years ago) met in the building (ie Acacia Lodge No. 85). That local chapter is not notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment In a series of posts on my talk page, the original author has asked several times for us just to go ahead and delete the article. It's slightly confusing because he's using three different accounts interchangeably, and not signing his posts, but it does seem to be the same person. I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a vote for the purposes of this discussion (or even a request for a G7 speedy); he seems reluctant to post here, just wants this to go away. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Too often Wikipedia treats new editors badly, including by immediately nominating all of their edits (often concentrated in one or two new articles that are marginal) for deletion. It is overwhelming for anyone new. There ought to be an automatic pass for such situations, whereby the new one or two articles are Kept in mainspace for one year, perhaps put into a category that brings them up for reconsideration when the year is over. This is one of those cases, where the topic is at least on the margin notability-wise, the creator is not up to dealing with the onslaught of negative attention even though it might be saved by a more experienced campaigner, and there would be no harm done (no big precedent set, no reader or editor confusion) if this would just be kept around. The cost in terms of destroying newbie goodwill is high; Wikipedia is declining because of this. --Doncram (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point Domcram, and while I wholly agree that does happen to an extent, at the same time that editor did begin a new article with blatant wp:copyvio. There's warnings aplenty regarding that (as I know you are aware), especially considering the bulleted points at the top of the page when creating a new article. So IMO a year might be a little too long... but a month wouldn't be unreasonable. Markvs88 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doncram in principle, and hope that I wasn't too bitey in this instance; I just wanted to note that it appears in this case it's not an entirely new user. From the talk page correspondence I linked to above, they have at least three accounts going back as far as 2015 (admittedly with few edits over that time); User:Honeywell1640, one of those accounts, has a PROD notification about Acacia 85 on their talk page - the PROD seems to be about notability, but it actually ended up being deleted under G12 (copyright infringement) - they've been down this same road before. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 29 January 2019 (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.