Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization of Triangles (2nd nomination)

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. Xoloz 15:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Triangles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Still a nn group, even after research. This article was first kept as no consensus, but further research has turned up no third-party sources either online or in the Masonic Library in Triangles' home state of New York. There are only 13 chapters in the entire state, and they are concentrated in small areas, and there isn't even any local coverage. Thus, there is still no assertion of notability. MSJapan 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the group gets very little reference that I could see, except for refs such as "so-and-so, Organization of Triangles group leader" and the like. Nom states that printed material, even in the Masonic Library, is missing - that suggests the group just doesn't make WP:ORG. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I repeat my arguments from the previous AFD, with the addition that I could find not one external source on the orgainzation... even at the Masonic Library in it's home state (which did not even have internal sources). This leads me to seriously doubt that any external sources exist. Blueboar 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORG and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and dubious article. docboat 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I realise that i am biased here, seeing as i have had some small degree of input into the article. However, the organisation does exist. I would argue if anything that if the article itself is not large enough or detailed enough or interesting enough to keep by itself, then it could be merged into some other article that deals with masonic youth organisations for girls that have stemmed from the Order of the Eastern star. As many of them have including one that i was planning on writing a short article on "the constellation of junior stars." This article could easily be included in something like that. I feel that the information should be included at least for some degree of completion's sake. Ithillion 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might be willing to support a brief mention of these organizations in a more over-arching article on masonic youth orgs in general... Perhaps a section in the main Eastern star article on "offshoots and youth groups" or something? It's just that they are not notable enough for an article on their own. Blueboar 15:59, 17 August 2007 (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.