Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:14, 8 October 2010 editOrlady (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators94,578 edits two comments← Previous edit Revision as of 13:23, 8 October 2010 edit undoOrlady (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators94,578 edits Sons of Haiti: sourcesNext edit →
Line 59: Line 59:
::FYI, I have opened AFDs for two column 1 Masonic suborganization articles, at ] (whose only reference is Bessel), and ] (no sources whatsoever). I am aware that "Other Stuff Exists" arguments are insufficient. It seems relevant, anyhow, to point out that Other Stuff does exist, and I guess worser stuff should be deleted. The Sons of Haiti organization seems relatively more important, as an example of a column 3 Masonic organization. --] (]) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ::FYI, I have opened AFDs for two column 1 Masonic suborganization articles, at ] (whose only reference is Bessel), and ] (no sources whatsoever). I am aware that "Other Stuff Exists" arguments are insufficient. It seems relevant, anyhow, to point out that Other Stuff does exist, and I guess worser stuff should be deleted. The Sons of Haiti organization seems relatively more important, as an example of a column 3 Masonic organization. --] (]) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
:::How thoughtful/] of you, Doncram. :-) --] (]) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC) :::How thoughtful/] of you, Doncram. :-) --] (]) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - It occurs to me that the topic of African American Freemasonry (which includes, but is not limited to, ]) is a notable topic that could be addressed in an article. Even if there isn't enough info about the Sons of Haiti to form a separate article, there's enough info about it to include in an ] article. --] (]) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC) *'''Comment''' - It occurs to me that the topic of African American Freemasonry (which includes, but is not limited to, ]) is a notable topic that could be addressed in an article. Even if there isn't enough info about the Sons of Haiti to form a separate article, there's enough info about it to include in an ] article. --] (]) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
::A few sources on African American Freemasonry, apparently not limited to Prince Hall:
::*,
::*Corey D. B. Walker. ''A Noble Fight: African American Freemasonry and the Struggle for Democracy in America'', University of Illinois Press. 2008. ()
::* about the papers of an author of many articles on the subject.
::--] (]) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:23, 8 October 2010

Sons of Haiti

Sons of Haiti (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)

No notability asserted in article, and Google brings up very little information not associated with Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve The article, just recently started as a stub, does not yet meet standards for a good article, but its improvement can be covered by normal editing processes. Tag it "refimprove" and "expand" maybe. Or just develop it, using Google-accessible sources to start. The topic of the article is a black Masonic organization, and it has received snide comments from Masonic wikipedians at a couple Talk pages already. I gather that Masonites are snobby and have insular language ("bogus" and other terms) to deprecate fraternal organizations that represent schisms or differences of belief about their "craft". I think that the Sons of Haiti subgroup or separate fraternal organization group is probably as worthy, certainly to have one Misplaced Pages article. There are, I think, hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles about Masonite lore and groupings, worded often mysteriously to put a good face forward and to avoid revealing precious secrets.
The coverage available relating to the organization in Seattle, Washington is valid coverage, not yet developed in this article. However browsing shows the organization exists in Georgia and various places besides Seattle as well. It is a widespread organization and I believe coverage does support its topic as a valid Misplaced Pages subject. --doncram (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to keep and improve it -- I'm just questioning whether it's possible to demonstrate WP:N using WP:RS. Existence isn't really enough to justify an article, and the none of the sources I found when I checked before filing this demonstrated anything but existence.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't necessarily have time or interest to develop this a lot myself, but here are some pieces of information:
  • Sons of Haiti is a black fraternal organization that operates in U.S. states of Washington, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. (Bessel webpage has 3 separate mentions, in these three states)
  • It is a black Masonic order
  • It is a subgroup of Freemasonry, a subdivision of the Prince Hall (black) freemasonry.
  • The Sons of Haiti in Seattle Washington operated at ] from 1973 to 2009. (various sources)
  • There is a Sons of Haiti Lodge in Renton, Washington. The City of Renton City Council "recognized August 11, 2010 as Sons of Haiti Supreme Council Day".
  1. Nancy Bartley (2008). "Washington Hall, where Fats Domino and other black performers played, is for sale". Seattle Times.
  2. "All Masonic Grand Lodges in the United States". Bessel.
  3. "Renton".
I believe that some of the numerous Masonic editors in[REDACTED] may have books about Prince Hall freemasonry and other sources that would speak to the history of this organization, or access to libraries that have such. --doncram (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure SoH is a "subgroup" of Masonry, but the Bessel ref definitely doesn't support that they're associated with Prince Hall Masonry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The Renton lodge is the same as the Seattle one ... it is their new location after they sold Washington Hall. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, i had misinterpreted the 3 columns in the Bessel tabulation of Masonic organizations. It in fact gives 1) "Mainstream" or "AF&AM" or "generally-recognized" Grand Lodges, 2) "Official" Prince Hall Grand Lodges, and 3) Other Grand Lodges. Out of sight of the headers, down in the table, I had misinterpreted the 3rd column entries in each state as being components of the 2nd column entries. Anyhow, there are apparently differences amongst types of Masonic organizations that may mean a lot to some members, may mean nothing to others, and which don't seem terribly important to explain in Misplaced Pages. Or, perhaps the contention among them is worthy of discussion. I don't want to give airplay to the bogus-looking blog-like websites about which are "bogus" or not. It hardly seems right for several self-acknowledged Masonic members here, i presume of column type 1, to be deleting all mention of the type 2 and type 3 organizations from Misplaced Pages, if that is what is going on. I suspect that there are few or no persons of column type 2 or type 3 who are editor-members of WikiProject Freemasonry, which may choose to itself cover only type 1. But, this is an organization that exists and it should not be for WikiProject Freemasonry or one or a few Masonic members to erase mention of the other types. --doncram (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know for sure of any PHA members of WPFreemasonry, but they'd certainly be welcomed there. My GL officially recognizes the PH GLs in CT and MA, and the MA GL actually has a lodge in Bangor, near where I live. I could visit them, if I knew where and when they met... After column 2, though, things get fuzzy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete organisation with no notability stated in the article. If they're notable, then prove it. There certainly isn't anything saying so in the article whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I too have tried to find sources on this organization with no results. There is no indication that they can meet the standards set out at WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the article barely 24 hours old at this point, and I'm appauled that it's tagged for deletion so quickly as it does not run foul of Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy except for perhaps Misplaced Pages:Notability, though it does (now) have the required two links. Markvs88 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I mentioned the Washington Hall coverage in my nomination. Can you find anything notable about the organization, rather than the building? If so, I'd love to have it added. I'm generally an inclusionist, and will withdraw my noms given sufficient incentive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The article is now up to 4 citations so it meets notability standards. As for building vs. group, that they were the owners is in itself notable. As you might be aware, Masonic coverage is usually pretty scarce in the media other than the occasional picture of Shriners in a parade. :-| I'm also not from the area, so it's not like I'm doing anything other than using search engines. However, I *did* find something on the Oregon chapter and have added it to the article. Markvs88 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Portland MLK source does not indicate that there is an "Oregon chapter"... note the commas... this could be the Washington group traveling down to Portland. The citations is trivial... listing the Sons of Haiti among the many groups that were volunteers at the event. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The number of citations is not the standard by which we judge notability. WP:ORG says: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. I would say that the citations that have been added since this AfD started fall into the "Trivial or incidental coverage" category. What is needed is a source that actually discusses the organization in some depth. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused then -- a citation from a Masonic group saying another group is bogus is most certainly notable and verifiable, as is a citation from the City of Portland. Yes, I agree such a document would seriously help the article, but that's not the point -- it is verifiable (though a stub) and should not be deleted. Markvs88 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Blueboar, you have previously mentioned going to a New York Masonic Grand Lodge library occasionally to do research. Could you possibly go again soon, or check on your next trip, for books discussing these organizations. Also, can you tell remotely using any online index, if there are books there which would seem likely to cover the column 2 and column 3 type Masonic organizations, and/or disagreements among them?
And, I guess i agree with Markvs88, that reliable discussion of which organizations are regarded as "bogus" by others might well be appropriate and used in the article. As well as city of Portland and other sources being reliable about the notability of the organization, whether they go into the internecine warfare or not. --doncram (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
A valid point... we have not checked "dead tree" sources. I am actually going in to the Livingston Library this afternoon to look up something else... so I will be happy to see if there is anything on the Sons of Haiti.
As for the Phylaxis web page... The coverage is trivial... the reference is simply the inclusion of the Sons of Haiti name in a list of many organizations that Phylaxis considers "bogus Masonry". There is no significant discussion of why they list the Sons, or of the organization itself.
Notability isn't based on the number of citations that mention an org, its based on the quality and depth of coverage within those citations. A plethora of trivial passing references and incidental coverage does not demonstrate notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Searching in Google books, there's a Langston Hughes poem with "Sons of Hait" being a line.
Blueboar: true, except that this subject per WP:NRVE has "reputable media sources and other reliable sources generally". The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Maintaining an historic building, working a local governmental affair and being blacklisted by another group are all verifiable and all noteworthy. That there is no single source stating details on the group is hardly surprising -- even the New York City Police Department lacks that. Having a FAQ like Historic Seattle does is not a requirement for an article, either. Markvs88 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Other than passing references in a few articles that are primarily about a historical building, what "reputable media sources and other reliable sources generally" discuss this organization? Seriously, I think you are trying to build a house of cards on very flimsy foundation here. But we can let other editors look at the sources and decide. (side question... do we have a source for the "Sons of Haiti" and the "Sons and Daughters of Haiti" being the same org? or are people simply assuming that they are because the names are similar). Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I count 3 out of 7 about the building and it's purchase/sale by the group. 1 listing by the City of Portland as being/working a notable event. 1 by Prince Hall Freemasonry claiming they're not a legitimate masonic group. 1 listing by Bessel listing them as a masonic group and 1 by the City of Renton giving them their own day. Even if you (unjustly) ignore the building references, the other four conform to The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. That the four sources don't reveal the secret handshake and name of the Tyler is moot... this page is better referenced than Grand Lodge of Connecticut! Side question: I have none, that was in the article before I got involved. Markvs88 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Userfy to wait for more content, unless new sources are found before this AfD expires. I sympathize with Doncram's reasons for starting this article, but there's not enough WP:RS substance to form the basis of an article (or establish notability, for that matter). However, I did find a website for this organization at http://sohscusa.com/haitiusa/Home.html -- with an interesting story at http://sohscusa.com/haitiusa/AboutUs.html (click on the first button; the second button doesn't work). It seems that this is an African American Masonic organization that was formed in Seattle after a legal squabble with the Prince Hall Masons. I expect that Blueboar and other Freemasons will weigh in on how "Masonic" they are. Regardless of the verdict on that topic, the organization's own website plus a bunch of articles about the group's ownership of that Seattle building aren't enough of a basis for an article, however. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I am pleased that you found their website, as it indicates that they are not a complete "two guys with a website calling themselves a Grand Lodge" type scam (I didn't think they were, but this is always an issue that has to be considered). Freemasonry (and especially African-American Freemasonry) is full of splinter groups and schisms... Misplaced Pages does not care which of them are considered Masonicly "legitimate" or not... but it does care which of them can be considered notable... and that is demonstrated by whether they are discussed in any depth by reliable third-party sources. In this case, that does not seem to be the case. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
And what is the bar for depth? It's not like Lodge Minutes is a column in the local newspaper. Markvs88 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment about related Masonic organization articles It seems relevant to note the complete lack of sourcing, or poor and inadquate sourcing, in other Masonic organization articles. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania article has one source, dated 1961. There is no source whatsoever in Grand Lodge of Kansas, which was tagged by me on September 2 for sources and notability. I am wondering about opening an AFD there. Surely those calling for deletion of this Sons of Haiti article, 1 day old, would agree that a long-unsourced, completely unsourced article like that should be speedily deleted, right? I think the AFD opening here was unnecessarily aggressive, when tagging for addition of sources would have been more appropriate. --doncram (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup... I knew someone would argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is an important difference, however... A quick Google search shows that reliable and independent sources do exist to support an article on those organizations, while an exhaustive search is turning up almost nothing on the Sons of Haiti. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way... Per your request, I went to the Livingston Masonic Library here in NY... nothing found. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened AFDs for two column 1 Masonic suborganization articles, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho (whose only reference is Bessel), and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Kansas (no sources whatsoever). I am aware that "Other Stuff Exists" arguments are insufficient. It seems relevant, anyhow, to point out that Other Stuff does exist, and I guess worser stuff should be deleted. The Sons of Haiti organization seems relatively more important, as an example of a column 3 Masonic organization. --doncram (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
How thoughtful/pointy of you, Doncram. :-) --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
A few sources on African American Freemasonry, apparently not limited to Prince Hall:
--Orlady (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti: Difference between revisions Add topic