Deletion of New Welcome Lodge

Comment: This is not  but a legitimate counter-factual historical argument.  The influence of Freemasons on British public life has been a notable subject in recent years.  This is a significant contribution to that.  While the article is largely based on the work of one academic, it is based on proper academic sources.  These are summarised in the article.  Furthermore the |synthesis is not that of the WP author, but that of the academics quoted.  Note: I have just tidied up some of the unnecessary repetition in the reference apparatus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:SYN)

Comment: IF there some way to independently verify the assertions in a single, somewhat obscure, secondary source. The sourcing for this article depends on the ''footnotes'' in a particular minor journal which cite a number of primary and secondary sources. If everything asserted here is true (or at least individually verifiable), the notability criteria of  are clearly met; but my concern is that the importance and notability of the subject may have been |synthesized by assembling these indirect sources, as opposed to having a real source that says directly that the Lodge was important because of its connections to particular political events. Thus given the presumption of fundamental accuracy of the sources, I argue for '''keep''' in the hope that the article can be improved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:SYN)