Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comacine masters

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 of the debate was a cast-iron keep. Particularly persuasive is the nominator changing his mind (kids! Remember that trick!). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comacine masters

unsubstantiated stub. Only one self referencing citation offered. Blueboar 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flapdragon 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of Maestri comacini (ethimology probably from Como or from cum machinis) they were a corporation of masons (stone workers).They are quite notable, altought not related with freemasonry but with a association of some masons

see references:

in english [1] [2]
in italian [[3]] [4] [5] [6] [7]

I think the article should be rewritten and renamed to Maestri comacini or Magistri comacini. -- Melaen 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "The Church's Debt To Freemasonry" by J.A. Sherren, Leader Scott's Cathedral Builders is referenced as a source of the idea that the Comacine Masters were predecessors to the Freemasons. It is also referenced in "The Builder" October 1923, reprint found here. Whether or not is is CORRECT, it was a theory held about the origins of Freemasonry, and is not without some form of substantiation.--Vidkun 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sounds notable. Also sounds like the type of thing people may try to look up in Wikipedia. Nortonew 17:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to change my mind and vote to Keep... At the time that I listed it as an AdF candidate the article was no more than as a small snippet (one sentence long) solely referencing the ideas presented in "The Builder" (see comments by Vidkun above) . In the few hours since I listed it here, more information has been presented and the article is being expanded. I guess sometimes you have to threaten to take something away before people appreciate it :) Blueboar 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic -- Astrokey44|talk 23:57, 25 January 2006 (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.