Talk:St. John's Lodge

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Freemasonry

This disambiguation page is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

Masonic Lodges

There is a problem with including the two Masonic lodges named "St. John's Lodge" in this dab page... neither one has an article about them (the closest we come is an article about the bible used at George Washington's inauguration which happens to be owned by a St. John's Lodge... but that article is about the bible, not the lodge). Furthermore, since WP:ORG states that local chapters of international orgainizations are not considered notable, it is unlikely that an article would ever be written about them. I am removing them as being non-notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lodges have been considered notable, for example New Welcome Lodge. If the AfD agrees with you we can take this out. Otherwise it looks like your trying to depopulate the page first. JASpencer (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that listing them without demonstrating notability is grasping at sraws, yet again. A quick survey of the UGLE web page raised about 18 before I lost interest, similarly in GLoS there are many.

ALR (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dap page is for. WP:dab states... "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." (bolding mine).

Unless we have multiple articles that could all be entitled "St. John's Lodge" (which at the moment we don't) we should not have a dab page. Dab pages are not "these articles have something in common" pages. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]