The result was KEEP. Those making the keep argument have presented a necessary minimum of reliable source material to craft a quality encyclopedia article about the subject. Clearly meets the basic requirements of notability guidelines. Steven Walling 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No notability asserted in article, and Google brings up very little information not associated with Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington). SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Discussion not directly relevant to this AfD
|
---|
Comment about related Masonic organization articles It seems relevant to note the complete lack of sourcing, or poor and inadquate sourcing, in other Masonic organization articles. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania article has one source, dated 1961. There is no source whatsoever in Grand Lodge of Kansas, which was tagged by me on September 2 for sources and notability. I am wondering about opening an AFD there. Surely those calling for deletion of this Sons of Haiti article, 1 day old, would agree that a long-unsourced, completely unsourced article like that should be speedily deleted, right? I think the AFD opening here was unnecessarily aggressive, when tagging for addition of sources would have been more appropriate. -- doncram ( talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
|
Feel free to uncollapse, just hiding until confusion is clarified
|
---|
Update Some of the adamant opposition seemed to be about concern that this organization might be a fraud in some way, somehow taking advantage of donors or some vague threat. Some concern was also that this was regarded as "bogus", for not yet being recognized by "mainstream" Masonic bodies. Note all black Masonic bodies were once not recognized; now some but not all mainstream ones recognize Prince Hall black Masonic groups. There remains significant evidence of long-standing racism in Masonic organizations. And, the source used within this article to lambast this organization as being "bogus", seems at the moment to me to have been entirely unfair (and i just removed it). The statement was that "the "Bogus Masonry" project of
Prince Hall Freemasonry's Phylaxis Society describes the Sons of Haiti as "bogus" for not having descended from African Lodge Number 459 or the United Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland.
[1] I wonder if i am making a mistake, but that source does not appear to deprecate or mention the Sons of Haiti at all(!) So some anti- type sentiment seems to have been misinformed.
Also, though i am confused by Blueboar's continued opposition to this article, in contrast to his apparent wishes to improve the article by many edits there and at its Talk page, I appreciate Blueboar's acknowledgement at
Talk:Sons of Haiti that:
Whatever the weird fears of fraud are, here we have an acknowledgment this group is legit, and I believe it is important to show in Wikipedia that black groups within Masonry exist, including Prince Hall ones and also other splinters. B has reiterated at the Talk page that he opposes the article's existence, but the back-and-forth in the article and in its Talk page belies that. This is a legitimate topic in Wikipedia, IMO. -- doncram ( talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
|
The result was KEEP. Those making the keep argument have presented a necessary minimum of reliable source material to craft a quality encyclopedia article about the subject. Clearly meets the basic requirements of notability guidelines. Steven Walling 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No notability asserted in article, and Google brings up very little information not associated with Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington). SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Discussion not directly relevant to this AfD
|
---|
Comment about related Masonic organization articles It seems relevant to note the complete lack of sourcing, or poor and inadquate sourcing, in other Masonic organization articles. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania article has one source, dated 1961. There is no source whatsoever in Grand Lodge of Kansas, which was tagged by me on September 2 for sources and notability. I am wondering about opening an AFD there. Surely those calling for deletion of this Sons of Haiti article, 1 day old, would agree that a long-unsourced, completely unsourced article like that should be speedily deleted, right? I think the AFD opening here was unnecessarily aggressive, when tagging for addition of sources would have been more appropriate. -- doncram ( talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
|
Feel free to uncollapse, just hiding until confusion is clarified
|
---|
Update Some of the adamant opposition seemed to be about concern that this organization might be a fraud in some way, somehow taking advantage of donors or some vague threat. Some concern was also that this was regarded as "bogus", for not yet being recognized by "mainstream" Masonic bodies. Note all black Masonic bodies were once not recognized; now some but not all mainstream ones recognize Prince Hall black Masonic groups. There remains significant evidence of long-standing racism in Masonic organizations. And, the source used within this article to lambast this organization as being "bogus", seems at the moment to me to have been entirely unfair (and i just removed it). The statement was that "the "Bogus Masonry" project of
Prince Hall Freemasonry's Phylaxis Society describes the Sons of Haiti as "bogus" for not having descended from African Lodge Number 459 or the United Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland.
[1] I wonder if i am making a mistake, but that source does not appear to deprecate or mention the Sons of Haiti at all(!) So some anti- type sentiment seems to have been misinformed.
Also, though i am confused by Blueboar's continued opposition to this article, in contrast to his apparent wishes to improve the article by many edits there and at its Talk page, I appreciate Blueboar's acknowledgement at
Talk:Sons of Haiti that:
Whatever the weird fears of fraud are, here we have an acknowledgment this group is legit, and I believe it is important to show in Wikipedia that black groups within Masonry exist, including Prince Hall ones and also other splinters. B has reiterated at the Talk page that he opposes the article's existence, but the back-and-forth in the article and in its Talk page belies that. This is a legitimate topic in Wikipedia, IMO. -- doncram ( talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
|