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 redirect to Freemasonry in Belgium#Other Masonic Rites. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite of 1962[edit]

Article does not meet notability requirements set out at WP:ORG. The article has no sources (and certainly no independant third party sources, which are called for in the guideline) to verify that this organization even exists (much less that it is notable). Please note that this organization seems to be a very small, local verson of the far more notable Scottish Rite. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a splinter group, Merge to Scottish Rite. Powers ^T 00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not really a good option... Undue Weight becomes an issue if we merge. The splinter group is obscure enough that it would not rate more than a passing reference, if that, in the main article. And we still have the issue of lack of sources to deal with. We can not even verify that the organization even exists. For all we know this could be a hoax. I don't think it is, but my point is that we can't know without sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources verifying it's existence and notability can be found, consider merge once sourced. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of the branches of Belgian freemasonry - modeled on but never part of the "Scottish Rite" properly so-called. It's real name is "Souverain Collège du Rite Ecossais pour la Belgique". I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to notability - despite the lack of international (and especially Anglo-American) recognition, Belgian freemasonry is improbably important in the country's internal affairs (it provides the social nexus of "freethinking" politics and academia). This particular branch I'd guess is less notable, but I don't have much to do with masons. (Editing to add:) There is a book about it, published in 2002 and on sale here. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Freemasonry in Belgium. As Bb says there does not appear to be enough to establish notability yet, but they do exist and Freemasonry in Belgium was originally written to deal specifically with Belgian masonic groups where there were disputes about verifiability and notability. This glove seems to fit that particular hand quite well. JASpencer (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also has articles in the French and Dutch Wikipedias. If there is an article in more than one foreign language Wikipedia I usually wonder why we can't have one. If there is an article in a foreign language Wikipedia it is usually a strong argument for at least having a redirect. I still think that due to the sources not being present then it should be a merge. JASpencer (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator: The fact that other wikis have an article is not a good argument, these have different standards of notability than we do. That said, given that we seem to have at least the possibility of sourcing, it is looking like a merger may be the best way to deal with this. I can agree to a merger (and JASpencer's proposal to merge it to Freemasonry in Belgium has some merit)... provided that the end result is properly sourced, and does not give undue weight to what seems to be a fairly small splinter group. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources == no merge. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting I'm relisting this to get some more debate on the disposition of this article. I'm inclined to close this as no consensus, but that would clearly not respect the spirit of the comments left here--that this not remain a standalone article. Remember, a merger doesn't mean that all of the content is moved into the target article. It may be anything from a redirect to a one line mention to a section in the target article. Let's get some consensus on whether or not a merger is appropriate, what the target would be, or if it should just be deleted. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask someone who reads Dutch to see if the references listed here meet the English Wikipedia standards? Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking? I'll tell you--the bibliography seems to be OK, though I don't recognize any of the presses (they're mainly Belgian, obviously). A note on Dutch Wikipedia: their standards do seem to be lower on the whole, or they scan less rigorously for lack of sources than we do here. Also, since there are generally fewer sources available online, they rely more on real books (those heavy, paper things) than we do, which makes it more difficult to gauge online what the quality of the sources is. Having said all that, I don't think it's a very good article--it lacks inline citations, or any kind of page reference, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was asking (or rather suggesting that if anyone knew a Dutch reader they might be able to help), although it seemed a long shot. Thanks. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! ;) Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say our best bet would be to merge this into Freemasonry in Belgium. While that article currently only discusses groups that give the basic core degrees of the fraternity (what in the US is called "blue lodge" Freemasonry, or in England "Craft" Freemasonry), it could probably be expanded to include a short paragraph on the various appendant bodies such as the Scottish Rite. That this is a marginally notable splinter group (at best) actually fits with the rest of the article. The one thing that the article makes abundantly clear is that Belgian Freemasonry is prone to fragmentation and schism. This appears to be simply another instance. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that; I don't care to where it's merged. Powers ^T 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a mid sized (about 14 groups) nationwide organisation this probably deserves its own entry, but frankly I'm not going to do anything about it. However as a redirect to Freemasonry in Belgium that would be fine, and I'd prefer to see the history kept. As it exists and it's an important, if small, part of Belgian Freemasonry if we could get a sourced mention of it in the Freemasonry in Belgium article then this would be great. But again, I'm not really bothered. As long as the history is not deleted and the redirect is put in place then I'm fine. JASpencer (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I have started a section at the Freemasonry in Belgium article on Other Masonic Rites as a possible merger. While short (only two sentences), the section could probably be expanded with additional sourcing. Does anyone object to redirecting the Scottish Rite of 1962 article to that section? Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good option to me. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE HAS BEEN REDIRECTED to Freemasonry in Belgium#Other Masonic Rites as per consensus. Blueboar (talk) 04:09, 1 December 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.