Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puerto Rican Freemasons

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. Courcelles 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican Freemasons

List of Puerto Rican Freemasons (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)

On its face, it seems this article is superfluous, containing information easily found elsewhere. Also, to what extent of granularity do we travel in supporting lists? Should we have "Freemasons from Macon, Georgia" or "Freemasons with one ear missing"? If we decide the article's topic is notable enough to keep, it's gonna require some copyedits to clean it up. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the spotty edits; I'm new at this!) I neglected to mention this article was also subject to a contested PROD and seems to fail the criteria listed in WP:N. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Overly specific topic. Some of these entries may be able to be Merged into the broader List of Freemasons (However, reliable sources that verify Masonic membership will be required for that list) but at this point there is no need for that list to be broken up into "by country" sub-articles. Blueboar (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree this is an overly specific topic. The two references currently on the article are both primary sources from the masonic lodge in Puerto Rico, the first one is the lodge website and the other is a press release. Looking through the linked articles, only two mention Freemasonry. One confirms he was a Freemason. The other just says he was accused of being a Freemason and was jailed because of the accusation. The one confirmed Freemason is already listed on the List of Freemasons so there is nothing to merge. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Discovered in NPP and original prodder. Prod was removed in therory "By Accident" but becuase it was removed it was contested. 'List of X that are Y', WP:LISTCRUFT apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This strikes me as an acceptable list — long enough without being too long, providing easily understandable inclusion criteria, potentially of use to Wikipedia users, and providing significant blue links. My concern is with the sourcing, which is non-existent. Carrite Sept. 24, 2010.
The lack of sourcing is a serious problem, with potential BLP issues (accusing someone of being a Freemason can have religious consequences). So is the fact that fully a quarter of the names on the list are redlinks. Are these notable people, or vanity additions? Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I looked at everyone of the blue links and only 2 of the blue links even mention freemasonry. 1 of the two said the person was accused of being a freemason, but does not say he was a freemason. The other one does say he was a freemason. All but one of the blue links should probably come off the list. None of the other ones are sourced at all. There is no indication that the redlinks are notable either. So if we remove all the blue links where their article does not mention freemasonry and all the other because there is no sources and there is no indication they are notable, we have a list with one name. Not much of a list. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I understand the article is not in a perfect state yet, but could be really useful to Wikipedia Puerto Rican users. The info is not superfluous or as mentioned before easily found elsewhere;please remember that masonry tend to have a secretive tradition and in Puerto Rico they were persecuted for a while. For that same reason the current biographical articles in wikipedia not necessary will include the fact in their sketch. Also please remember that Wikipedia is a work in process and not the final authority, again because the linked articles don't have the info does not mean is not true. The same could be said about the names in red, they are not necessary "vanity additions" is just that they have not made it to wikipedia yet...(but they will soon!)Finally, i will like to add that if every of the linked article are read carefully you will notice their notability in Puerto Rico's history and that the connection with the principles of freemasonry will give insights to the reasoning and circumstances of this Puerto Ricans and their work. --Caferato (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would note that still only 2 members of the list have claims of masonry in their articles. An example I could think of would be claiming that a politician was a member of Skull and Bones after they had died. Nobody can provide public sources which say that they are, and nobody can definitiveley say that they were not. I would prefer to error on the side of not including them Hasteur (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I also add that there is already a Wikipedia category call "Freemasonry by country" which shows that there have been a need for the topic to to be broken up into "by country" sub-articles...I suggest we do the same with the list of freemasons, especially when a country have more than 30 historical figures like this case!!--Caferato (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caferato... a laudable idea... but do you have sources to support what you say? If so, then we can create a Freemasonry in Puerto Rico article... but if not, then we should not. It all comes down to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 26 September 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.