342:
why and how the place meets federal standards of notability. The documents include historic context, reasons for notability and a detailed bibliography of sources, among other things. It is for these reasons that throughout years of having them judged as sources that places that have passed such scrutiny and are known to have such sources available have come to be accepted as notable. I'm sure you might win a delete on any given one or many, and force there to be no coverage of the subject until someone with enough time or interest requests the document, or until it becomes available online. I am equally sure that when the document was received or available online, the article would be re-added. Given the reliability of the known to be availabile documents, I cannot see what good is done to the encyclopedia to exclude all coverage of those places until such time as someone has the time to request the document for each of the 80,000 places. We have the list itself, which as a source tells us that the federal government has reviewed the information and found the place to be notable. The criteria are available online. The database was, and will be available online. We know that this place would have been listed but for the whim of the owner. So, be arbitrary and delete it if you want to. But don't try to convince me that it's in order to protect the encyclopedia or to keep out coverage of something inappropriate. You may think the reasons for our believing that anything listed on the NRHP is notable are "idiotic", but I think it's idiotic to dismiss them without even asking upon what they were founded.
575:. Personally I'd say that rather abuses the notion of notability, but the majority of votes do tend to take a fairly lax position around evidence. There are a number of aspects of this article, as with many of the similar stub articles, that would benefit from clarification around meaning and accuracy. The use of the NRHP forms as a source does leave me considering our position on Primary and Secondary sources, the form looks like a primary source to me.
210:
building; here he argues lack of NRHP listing status proves non-notability. That is silly; there are many buildings that are not NRHP-listed, including, in the United States, many historically important ones such as the White House, the
Supreme Court building, and, well, many others. I believe in AFD nominations there is some requirement or suggested guideline for nominators to look for sources, first. Has that been done?
283:, which is displayed on the AFD main page. Call them "guidelines" or "suggested requirements" that the nominator ignored then. I just pointed to the very first hit in googling on "Scottish Rite Pasadena". I expect there are some other google-accessible sources, and many offline sources, regarding this place. I don't see how you can possibly come to a judgment that there is no independent coverage of the place, already.
287:
it usually takes a while to receive those from the U.S. National
Register in Washington, D.C., when the documents are not available on-line (as for California). Because I am somewhat interested in developing the article. The AFD should be rejected outright, IMHO, but you are obviously free to disagree. --
209:
Sigh. I was hoping MSJ would participate in a notability discussion first at the Talk page of the article, rather than bringing this to AFD, but i rather expected it to come here. The AFD nomination is confused. I believe MSJ feels on the one hand that NRHP listing does not convey notability for a
286:
About more sources, it should be possible to get a copy of an NRHP nomination form for the place, which is generally regarded as a reliable secondary source, even though the NRHP listing did not go through. There is a date and an NRHP reference number available. I'll put in a request for that, but
275:
Umm, the NRHP accepted the listing and judged the place notable; hence the finding that the place was NRHP-eligible. It's a technical matter that the building's owner, the
Scottish Rite of Pasadena, apparently, chose to decline to allow the listing. Pasadena is a city with a very active historic
341:
There are three sources listed on the bottom of the page originally linked that you didn't like. Just because you cannot immediately access them doesn't make them invalid sources. As far as NRHP nominations, have you ever looked at one? They are generally long, well-written documents justifying
257:
fails GNG. The source found on google, pasadenascottishrite.org, doesn't demonstrate any coverage independent of the subject. NHRP explicitly declined the application. "Interesting" is a subjective opinion of the author of the wikipedia article. The citing of BEFORE is also misleading. That's not
301:
If you find reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to allow for the construction of an actual encyclopedia article on a building of established (rather than supposed or imagined or "expected") notability, let us know. This article should have never been created in the absence of
213:
About the place, I have visited it and took photos a while back, which I'll look for and upload within a few days. I recall that, while it is not huge, it is a monumental kind of building that stands out as unusual in
Pasadena, and that its Art Deco / zig-zag moderne styling is notable.
193:
for more on this. There are issues there, but the basis of that list is NRHP listing. The article here clearly states the building is not on the NRHP because the oweners did not wish it on there. It is not a unique building either in style or period of construction, and simply being
366:
360:
363:
631:
per above. The sources which have been found so far demonstrate notability. In this specific case the site's non-inclusion on the NRHP speaks more toward its notability than against it, since it was historic enough to be listed before the owner objected.
158:
276:
preservation community, and NRHP listing would likely bring the building within local building/historic preservation restrictions, as happens in a number of other jurisdictions, so an owner decision not to allow listing sometimes happens.
302:
appropriate sources. You haven't found any -- and neither has anyone else. If there's some clearly idiotic guideline that says everything on the NRHP is de facto notable, that's a pity -- but it still wouldn't trump the GNG.
86:
81:
152:
90:
73:
437:
I have notified the above editor that his vote rationale is directly contradictory to the basis of the AfD and facts established in the article. NHRP.com is not considered to meet RS. -
118:
487:
77:
359:
Per NRHP nomination docs, web sources in the article and Los
Angeles Times newspaper coverage, including this series from Feb. 16-18, 1925 when the cathedral was dedicated:
113:
614:. The fact that the owner declined listing on the NRHP does not negate its eligibility for such listing. Notable buildings in the US don't have to be listed on the NRHP.
461:
367:
SCOTTISH RITE HAS DEDICATION: Elaborate
Ceremonies Take Place at Cathedral Several Hundred Masons of High Degree Present Further Programs Planned at Crown City Edifice
173:
69:
61:
361:
CATHEDRAL TO BE DEDICATED: Services Will be
Conducted in Pasadena Tomorrow New Scottish Rite Building Beautiful Edifice National Officers Are Here for Ceremonies
140:
653:
636:
623:
588:
549:
524:
502:
476:
446:
428:
407:
390:
351:
333:
311:
296:
267:
249:
223:
203:
134:
52:
130:
180:
189:
Does not meet notability guideline. Notability for buildings seems to indicate NRHP listing as the criterion for notability; see
146:
17:
563:
it doesn't pass the NRHP project notability position, however if one takes a fairly generous position on the meaning of
668:
190:
36:
667:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
416:
386:
374:
329:
307:
263:
644:- listing on a registry is evidence of notability, but not being listed is not evidence of non-notability.
619:
403:
545:
166:
364:
TO DEDICATE CATHEDRAL: Everything in
Readiness for Scottish Rite Ceremony at Pasadena This Evening
633:
603:
533:
520:
382:
370:
325:
303:
259:
649:
615:
498:
472:
442:
347:
292:
245:
219:
199:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
378:
194:"architecturally interesting" is too vague when it fails the major criterion for notability.
424:
399:
280:
237:
398:
There seems to be fair number of primary and secondary sources to establish notability.
377:) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Additionally, the Scottish Rite Cathedral has an entry in
611:
541:
49:
607:
584:
572:
537:
516:
512:
645:
599:
494:
468:
438:
343:
288:
241:
215:
195:
233:
107:
420:
240:
which states requirements for an AFD nominator to follow, not followed. --
580:
258:
policy, nor a requirement, whether or not the non-policy is "adhered to."
571:
then there are likely to be sufficient sources to meet the needs of the
559:, I'm not intending on voting in this. Given that this building is not
661:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
515:
as demonstrated by AbbyKelleyite. Even eligible for the NHRP.--
103:
99:
95:
165:
488:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
671:). No further edits should be made to this page.
511:- Historic Pasadena building that easily passes
419:should be sufficient to establish notability. --
462:list of California-related deletion discussions
70:Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California)
62:Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California)
179:
8:
482:
456:
379:An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles
486:: This debate has been included in the
460:: This debate has been included in the
7:
417:National Register of Historic Places
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
232:A few moments googling finds
53:01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
573:General Notability Guideline
415:Its inclusion on this list:
654:13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
637:22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
624:19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
589:09:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
550:06:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
525:02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
503:01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
477:01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
447:01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
429:01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
408:00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
391:18:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
352:20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
334:18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
312:19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
297:19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
268:18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
250:17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
224:17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
204:17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
688:
569:independent of the subject
191:List of Masonic buildings
664:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
279:Whatever you say about
324:per Bali ultimate.--
505:
491:
479:
465:
449:
679:
666:
492:
466:
436:
184:
183:
169:
121:
111:
93:
34:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
678:
677:
676:
675:
669:deletion review
662:
236:. And i found
126:
117:
84:
68:
65:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
685:
683:
674:
673:
657:
656:
639:
626:
604:Abby Kelleyite
592:
591:
577:
576:
553:
552:
534:Abby Kelleyite
527:
506:
480:
453:
452:
451:
450:
383:Abby Kelleyite
371:Abby Kelleyite
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
284:
277:
227:
226:
211:
187:
186:
123:
119:AfD statistics
64:
59:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
684:
672:
670:
665:
659:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
640:
638:
635:
634:TheCatalyst31
630:
627:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
593:
590:
586:
582:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
504:
500:
496:
489:
485:
481:
478:
474:
470:
463:
459:
455:
454:
448:
444:
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
362:
358:
354:
353:
349:
345:
340:
336:
335:
331:
327:
326:Caravan train
323:
313:
309:
305:
304:Bali ultimate
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
285:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
265:
261:
260:Bali ultimate
256:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
225:
221:
217:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
120:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
663:
660:
641:
628:
616:clariosophic
595:
568:
564:
560:
556:
529:
508:
483:
457:
412:
411:
395:
394:
356:
355:
338:
337:
321:
320:
254:
253:
229:
228:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
56:
45:
43:
31:
28:
565:non trivial
400:scope_creep
230:Speedy Keep
153:free images
612:Arxiloxos
542:Arxiloxos
495:• Gene93k
469:• Gene93k
281:WP:BEFORE
238:wp:BEFORE
50:Mandsford
608:Oakshade
538:Oakshade
517:Oakshade
114:View log
646:Bearian
600:Lvklock
557:Comment
439:MSJapan
344:Lvklock
289:doncram
242:doncram
216:doncram
196:MSJapan
159:WP refs
147:scholar
87:protect
82:history
610:, and
561:listed
513:WP:GNG
421:Crunch
322:Delete
255:Delete
131:Google
91:delete
174:JSTOR
135:books
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
650:talk
642:Keep
629:Keep
620:talk
598:per
596:Keep
585:talk
567:and
546:talk
536:and
532:per
530:Keep
521:talk
509:Keep
499:talk
484:Note
473:talk
458:Note
443:talk
425:talk
413:Keep
404:talk
396:Keep
387:talk
375:talk
357:Keep
348:talk
339:Keep
330:talk
308:talk
293:talk
264:talk
246:talk
234:this
220:talk
200:talk
167:FENS
141:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
46:Keep
581:ALR
540:.--
493:--
467:--
181:TWL
116:•
112:– (
48:.
652:)
622:)
606:,
602:,
587:)
548:)
523:)
501:)
490:.
475:)
464:.
445:)
427:)
406:)
389:)
381:.
369:.
350:)
332:)
310:)
295:)
266:)
248:)
222:)
214:--
202:)
161:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
648:(
618:(
583:(
544:(
519:(
497:(
471:(
441:(
423:(
402:(
385:(
373:(
346:(
328:(
306:(
291:(
262:(
244:(
218:(
198:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.