Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Landmarks

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic Landmarks

Article is little more than a list of lists, WP:NOT, article is not notable WP:NN in this format without significant Original Research and article topic is adequately discussed in other Freemasonry related articles in the wider context. ALR 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Mostly Non-notable Listcruft and the rest is better discussed elsewhere. Blueboar 21:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - shows how landmarks have been treated differently, and how changing them has led to problems within Freemasonry.--SarekOfVulcan 22:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - What better example for the old adage Adopt, adapt and improve!Harrypotter 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Not great in its current form as a list but could be good article with rewrite Bwithh 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but give it some TLC. Jachin 01:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Torn, but delete in current form. Listcruft, borders on original research in places. WegianWarrior 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep - there are some info here which is difficult to find elsewhere. Perhaps some editing will make the article better.
• merge into Freemasonry. I don't see them listed there, and they are important, IMHO. --Cassavau 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this article is something that will never be acceptably done; there's too much variance. For example, the 25 Landmarks listed here are only one man's opinion, and depending on who you listen to, it's a combination of various things, anywhere from 7 on up. MSJapan 00:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Although the article can (and should) be better researched and go deeper into the subject. If the article needs a rewrite then be bold and do it, don't just nominate it for AfD. I'd also like to see a justification for the orignal research claim in the nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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.