Talk:Freemasonry in Denmark

Notability?
What makes this organization notable? Looking at the website, it consists of just 4 lodges, which makes me think that it has less than 100 members. WP:ORG lays out the criteria needed:
 * A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.


 * The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:


 * Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
 * Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

The Guideline goes on to discuss Non-commercial organizations:
 * Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above. Other criteria are:


 * Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
 * Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.
 * The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.
 * Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.
 * Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split.  This should occur as a top down process. See splitsection,

In this case, I have to question whether such a small organization really qualifies as being a "national" in scale. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Move?
I note that this article has been moved from Grand Lodge of Denmark to Freemasonry in Denmark, with the edit summary "Article is about Freemasonry in Denmark rather than a Grand Lodge". I have to question that. I do understand that the article is about more than one organization ... but it isn't about Freemasonry in Denmark either. It gives no background information, no history as to the development of Freemasonry in Denmark. It essentially remains a stub article about two masonic bodies that go by similar names. Neither of which is really notable.

The move strikes me as an attempt to avoid dealing with my questions as to the notability of the subject(s) of the original article, especially given that the notability tag was removed by the same editor who moved the article. The questions that I raised about what makes these organizations notable have not been answered. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Grand Lodges that are operating tend to get through AfDs, and always get through when properly debated. So the article is not going to fail an AfD and so the move is not about avoiding a notability tag.  The fact is that this is not about one lodge but two and the shared English title no longer makes any sense but the other title does.  Once again I think you would profit from reading WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  JASpencer (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Freemasonry in Denmark consists of considerally more Grand Lodges than these two and several are bigger than the Storlogen af Danmark. I will add information about the organisations as well as a description of the historical development. In a couple of days or at most a couple of weeks the article should have been expanded to better cover the topic and establish notability. Ergo-Nord (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, that would be very good. The reason I moved this was not to establish notability but to better represent the two lodges.  Feel free to break out the individual bodies in to their own articles if you feel that you can establish notability.  JASpencer (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Notability banner
Rereading the original notability points you made the article was quite different. Then it was talking about the Storlogen af Danmark, the continental jurisdiction. It now talks about both jurisdictions and furthermore is about a far wider subject than this, Freemasonry in Denmark. So the notability argument will have to be remade. Is Freemasonry in Denmark a non notable subject? JASpencer (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * JAS, the point that WP:NOTE repeatedly makes is that notability needs to be established through reliable sources that are independant of the subject. This article does not do this (yet).  At the moment, the article has only one independant source, and that simply mentions the subject in passing.  Once notability is established, and more sources are added, then you can remove the tag.  Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a couple of sources (Danish only I am afraid) that should be enough to establish the notability of the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since noone has objected I will remove the notability tag. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)