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 Keep.(non-admin closure) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLIPSAS[edit]

CLIPSAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

NN group, despite an existence since 1961. The one thing about them that would be notable was that they were formed at the suggestion of the Grand Orient de France, but the GOdF never actually joined the group. Effectively, then, they are a splinter group of a splinter group, and there is neither any assertion of notability nor any to be found. MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional source material has been added to prove its notability. Pvosta (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... the source material provided all seems to come from the organization itself... which shows that the orgainization thinks itself notable, not that anyone else thinks it is notable. I think independant secondary sources are needed. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CLIPSAS is one of three organisations in which the liberal masonic lodges have united, not a splinter group.Pvosta (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Regretably, I can't read most foreign languages, but it seems to have been referenced in "Le Monde" several times as per here. I can't myself speak for how significant the references in the sources linked to are, though, because I can't read whatever language it is that it's written in. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Continental Freemasonry is notorious for it's schisms, breakups, reformations, arguments, re-schisms, etc. Umbrella bodies are constantly being formed and reformed. The key to this debate is that all the players are tiny non-notable factions. If a large and notable body such as the Grand Orient de France (GOdF) or its rival the Grand Loge de France (GLF) (the two largest Masonic bodies in Europe) belonged to this organization I would have no hesitation in calling this notable. I am also concerned that the only sources come fom the organization itself. As stated above, I think the article would need independant secondary sources to establish the groups notablility. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On the strength of who belongs to it we have the Grande Oriente Lusitanio, the Portugese grand lodge, the Grand Loggia d'Italia - the second largest Italian lodge, and the liberal grand lodge of Turkey. It is the largest "liberal" body by members and is almost certainly the largest body of non-UGLE lodges. It was set up by the GOdF and many of the jurisdictions in the GOdF's orbit are still there. The fact that it is very weak in the English speaking world, and it is hated by the UGLE, should not mean it gets deleted. JASpencer (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I've just noted that there are five Wikipedia artilces in other languages. One or two may not suggest notability, but five? JASpencer (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as independent sources indicating notability have been added. Pvosta (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Which are the independant secondary sources? Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Le Monde, Paul Bessel and Pietre Stones are all listed. JASpencer (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if Bessel and Pietre Stones are what WP:ORG has in mind by independent reliable sources... both are Masonic in origin. I would think that WP:ORG, when it requires sources "independent of the subject", implies a source beyond the relatively insular world of Freemasonry. Le Monde would certainly work in that reguard... except that the article does not actually cite Le Monde (much less cite it for anything that indicates notability).

I also have difficulty with saying that Bessel and Pietre Stones establish notability, even if you stretch the idea of "independent" to include them. Bessel is essentially just collecting documents issued by CLIPSAS and similar orgs; he does not discuss them or comment on them in any detail... and The Pietre Stones article is an overview of the regularity issue... ie a Mason from Group A explaining the history behind why Masons from Group B are not considered "regular". Neither goes into enough detail to tell us what make CLIPSAS notable. These sources are really more appropriate for use as External Links than sources.Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh, Blueboar. WP:ORG says "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." International. Check. Sources independent of the organisation. Check.

As far as the point about notability what matters is that the activities are verified not whether they can be wikilawyered away about whether they meet notability criteria. JASpencer (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Secretariat_of_the_Masonic_Adogmatic_Powers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Masonic_Union_Catena. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - don't be silly - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - of course. This is the largest and worldwide Liberal umbrella organization. The GOdF was one of the founders, but left CLIPSAS to found SIMPA.

The Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon is one of the oldest and the most reputable Encyclopedia of Freemasonry in Germany:

Eugen Lennhoff (1891-1944), Oskar Posner (1878-1932), Dieter A. Binder (1953-): Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon: "[CLIPSAS] wurde am 22. Januar 1961 unter der Federführung des Grand Orient Frankreichs und jenem Belgiens gegründet, um die "liberale" bzw. "progressive" Freimaurerei in einer "universellen Bruderkette" zu vereinigen. Siehe auch "Appell von Straßburg". 1966 gehörten 28 Länder mit rund 65.000 Mitgliedern dieser Vereinigung an, [...] 2005 waren im Centre 54 Obödienzen in vier Erdteilen vertreten. [...]."

Obviously this deletion request comes from a non-liberal freemason.

Here's the list of members: http://www.clipsas.com/en/members_f.htm

--Liberal Freemason (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if a simple list of various Grand Lodges and Grand Orients that belong to the organization helps here... some of these are extremely tiny (with a total membership of under 50)... others are larger. The issue of whether the nominator is a "non-liberal freemason" or not is irrelevant... since this discussion should be about the article, not the organization itself or its rivals. The key here is that the article needs to establish the notability of the organization (which it does not do at this time) and it needs to cite reliable independent secondary sources in doing so. The simple fact is that this article does not meet the requirements of WP:ORG. it is one thing to claim notability here... it is another to establish it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's effectively the point - if there is "outside" coverage, you need to define outside, and again, there are irregular GLs that AFAIK consist of 2 individuals. This does not make them notable, though they do exist. An umbrella group that does nothing that directly affects its subordinates (whose NN is not contested, BTW) doesn't strike me as being notable either. There might be 300 members for all I know, but if those 300 are the same 30 people in ten places, and they don't do anything anyway, how do you support notability other than by claiming an agenda? There are plenty of NN mainstream Masonic orgs and people, and I've AfDed those too (who do you think got Knights of the North SALTed as NN advertising?), so I don't see any supposed bias. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Blueboar: As you might see, The Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon is a reliable independent secondary source. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't speak German, I can't really opine as to its reliability. Who publishes it? Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As written above, it's author is actually the historian Dieter A. Binder [1].

The text says: "[CLIPSAS] was founded on 22 January 1961 under the auspices of the Grand Orient of France and of Belgium to unite the "liberal" or "progressive" Freemasonry in a "universal brotherhood chain". See also "Appeal of Strasbourg." In 1966, there were 28 countries with approximately 65,000 members part of this association, [...] in 2005, 54 obediences of four continents were represented in the Centre. [...].

Amazon

Publisher is the Herbig Verlag, a division of de:Langen Müller Verlag. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings us back to a few problems: one, if people have sources, why are they never added until the article is up for AFD? Two, as we all are generally aware, Masonry is not now where it was in 1966. Three, how does this self-created centre meet notability on its own? History shows that there is no unity, obviously, or SIMPA et al. would never have been formed. I'm still not satisfied that the group invoves itself enough with its constituent members' conduct and/or activities to merit a claim of notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is a frequent problem in Wikipedia. It often takes the threat of deletion for people to bother to improve articles (although I am not sure if tossing a few references in at the bottom of the page counts as an improvement... it would be nice if the article actually asserted what makes the organization notable, and used inline citations to back that assertion). So far, all these sources back the fact that the organization exists... but do they establish notability? I have serious doubts. Has the organization never been discussed in the press, or by academia? If the only sources that discuss it are Masonic in nature, is it really notable? Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources that discuss it are Masonic in nature, is it really notable? I could probably use that same argument for a number of "regular" Masonic orgs which have articles on wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True... if we have articles on "regular" Masonic orgs that are only soucrced internally, we should question whether they meet the criteria at WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--Vidkun (talk) 12:38, 12 March 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.