Talk:Overton Lodge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
|
Freemasonry To-do:
|
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Tennessee, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Tennessee. |
[edit] Possible AfD
This is dangerously close to violating WP:VAIN. Unless there's something exceptionally notable about this lodge, as opposed to the other 10000+ lodges in the US, this is a non-notable vanity article. MSJapan 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
I strongly disagree. As one of the original lodges which founded the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, Overton Lodge deserves its own page. In addition, it is the oldest, extant lodge in the State. Finally, it's building is one of the largest in Tennessee and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Hopefully, there will soon be a picture of it in the article.
I agree that every Masonic lodge does not need an entry in Wikipedia, but it does not violate Wikipedia's Vanity Article policy to list a lodge that holds three important distincitions:
- Oldest extant lodge in a jurisdiction
- Original founding lodge of a jurisdiction
- Lodge building (Masonic Temple) is one of the oldest in the jurisdiction and is a part of the National Register of Historic Places
Diezba 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly OK, then, but there's still 50 oldest lodges and at least 50 founding lodges (and likely a lot more)just in the US. So notability in this sense is a bit borderline, I think. The building might be notable, but the National Register of Historic Places is by no means a small list -- there's probably 500 places just in Tennessee. Additionally, most Lodges have some sort of unique distinction, which makes that sort of not unique. However, most importantly, two out of three of the things you just said aren't even in the article. I'd add them, with citations, and maybe at least put this article up for peer review. I'll think on it a bit more myself. MSJapan 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- First, those things that I mentioned were all in the article, if you woudl have read it closely. They're now included in one place in case people choose not to pay close attention before criticizing. Second, while it's true that there are probably fifty of each, it wuold be difficult to find another lodge that has all three distinctions. And who is to say that, in the influence that Masons have had on the history of the United States, it would be bad to include an entry on Wikipedia for each of the oldest lodges? Diezba 16:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I did read the article before I made my comments, and I re-read it after you replied, and I still didn't see a clear reference to those items until you added them; believe me, I do know how to read. I also appreciate that you think this article is important, but there are guidelines over what is encyclopedic and what is not, and like it or not, the policies need to be followed in order for WP to be a useful and reliable resource.
- Furthermore (and more importantly), to have articles on the oldest lodges generally means that one runs into WP:NOR violations unless someone has already written a book about said lodge. That being said, if you are taking the information in this article from what you know or have been told rather than what has been published, you're just violating a different policy. The reason it's called a vanity article, by the way, is because it attempts to make the subject more notable than it really is. You sort of need to take a step back and say, "Is this really noteworthy in the larger scheme of things? Also, the reference to the Lodge secretary being in line to be GM is inappropriate content for the article. Once he is GM, though, it's usable. MSJapan 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, those things that I mentioned were all in the article, if you woudl have read it closely. They're now included in one place in case people choose not to pay close attention before criticizing. Second, while it's true that there are probably fifty of each, it wuold be difficult to find another lodge that has all three distinctions. And who is to say that, in the influence that Masons have had on the history of the United States, it would be bad to include an entry on Wikipedia for each of the oldest lodges? Diezba 16:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
MSJapan has asked me to pop over and give a third party oppinion... As a fellow Freemason, I found this article interesting. I am pleased to read about an old and distinguished Lodge ... however, I do have to agree that this article borders on being a vanity article. I have no doubt that Overton Lodge is noteworthy in Masonic circles (especially in Tennessee). But you do have to admit that such circles is a very small group of people. My lodge is one of the oldest in New York, with the likes of Dewitt Clinton (of Erie Cannal fame), John Jacob Astor, and Franklin D. Roosevelt in its list of brothers... VERY noteworthy in the Masonic world... yet I do not think it is noteworthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Before writing an article about it, I would have to ask myself... would a non-Mason care about this? and the answer unfortunately comes back... "no".
Now, I could see your BUILDING being potentially noteworthy, as it is an historic structure. And I could see including some explanation of what Overton Lodge is in any article about that building. But, I am not convinced that any Lodge is, in-itself, noteworthy.
Having read through WP:VAIN, I do have a question that would tip the balance one way or the other for me... Diezba, are you a brother of Overton? If so, then I must point out the following paragraph from that guideline...
Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc. Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent.
Fraternally - Blueboar 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am a member of Shades Valley Lodge No. 829, Grand Lodge of Alabama in Birmingham. I am from Rogersville, and so I am familiar with its history from my familiarity with Rogersville history.
-
- That leans me away from thinking that this is a vanity article, for we can forget about the "self-created article" rules. Now the only issue is notability. I still have doubts about this being a truly notable topic for an encyclopedia, but I do have to admit that it is more notable than a lot of the crap that gets included in Wikipedia... So, In my Unofficial capacity as a Neutral Third Party (for what that is worth) I hereby declair this article to be a) not a vanity article, and b) borderline notable. I also declair that Brother MSJapan must buy everyone a round! (bangs gavel). Blueboar 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
