Deletion of Grand Lodge of Iowa building

Comment: Being somewhat of a Wikipedia newbie editor I do not understand why this deletion was started in the first place. Here is my reasons / questions: 1) The article had been a stub for 19 minutes before it was nominated for deletion. The article has in the next 24 hours been greatly expanded (10 times it's original stub).2) I put in the words http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADFA_enUS406&q=Grand+Lodge+of+iowa+cedar+rapids+iowa&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=baa825c1e930c95b Grand Lodge of Iowa Cedar Rapids Iowa into Google and in the top four returns there was http://www.gl-iowa.org/building.html this a lengthy article. The second productive http://www.gl-iowa.org/Bulletin/GLB-Current.pdf return from Google is a March 2011 Grand Lodge Bulletin PDF in Which it is noted that the Cedar Rapids Lodge is the main office for the Iowa organization. Granted these sources may have a connection to the subject but  allows this as long as it is not self-serving. I did not search further, but the Wikipedia article now states many references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:ABOUTSELF)

Comment: I just undid LanceBarber's early close because there are outstanding delete !votes, so it's not eligible for a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SPEEDYKEEP)

Comment: It looks like a significant enough institution for an article. In any case, nominating an article for deletion 19 minutes after it was created is truly ludicrous. I have no idea what the nominator was thinking! Equally ludicrous was his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iowa_Masonic_Library_and_Museum&action=historysubmit&diff=420984964&oldid=420984077 deletion of a reference to the building's webpage citing "no self-published sources". What? That's not what  means at all. Of course an article can reference the organisation's own webpage to say when the building was built! This is a pure misinterpretation of the policy. When a building is constructed is a fact and there is nothing whatsoever that says that uncontroversial facts cannot be garnered from information published by the institution in question as long as that institution would generally be considered a reliable source. Change this and you would be deleting much info from a large proportion of our articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)