Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Europe

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 delete. Sandstein 22:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Europe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. " It was deprodded by anon User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 with the following rationale "WP:CONTESTED"; that anon deprodded a number of articles with such meaningless rationale before disappearing, likely a WP:POINT disruption or a spammer trying to waste our time. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. PS. Also ping User:DGG who tried to speedy this (speedy was declined). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain I'm not sure what to do with this . We seem to have articles on Independent Order of Odd Fellows in Sweden, we merged Independent Order of Odd Fellows Philippines to Independent order of Odd Fellows; there would be two consistent things to do--merge the Swedish chapter into this, or merge both of them to the main article. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support merge; I don't see how those national branches have stand-alone notability - unless there are sources, they don't, it's as simple as that. (And I don't see sources) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is little more than a dicdef, the sources used aren't independent of the organization itself, and existence is not notability. Therefore, there is nothing asserting notability. There's also nothing here worth merging. MSJapan (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MSJapan. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2015 (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.