Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Masonic Union Catena


 * 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 was keep.  Maxim (talk)  14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * sources were added.

International Masonic Union Catena

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an NN org. It is an umbrella group of only seven members of a small offshoot (mixed Masonry) of an offshoot of Freemasonry (Co-Masonry), with no assertion of notability despite a 48-year history. According to their webpage, they have a small festival every year, and that is it, and there are no reliable third-party sources available. MSJapan (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional source material has been added to prove the notability. Pvosta (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The International Masonic Union Catena is one of three organisations in which the liberal masonic lodges have united, not a splinter group.Pvosta (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pvosta, Welcome to world of WP:BIAS. English speaking UGLE Freemasons outnumber English speaking liberal Freemasons.  So you are splinter groups, your articles will always be under pressure for deletion and  you must accept that.  With all good faith, they would rather you didn't exist and it is simply a matter of numbers, nothing personal. JASpencer (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nom and for the same reason as the ones below. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom. Does not meet the notability requirements stated at WP:ORG... Added source seems to be internal. None of the organizations that belong to this umbrella group are notable in themselves, and the umbrella organization does not seem to have any sort of roll other than host a festival.  Independant secondary sources are non-existant. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although there is only one small English speaking constituent, hence there is a poor representation on the internet, this is still notable as it has a number of liberal lodges as members and seems quite important in co-freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as independent sources indicating notability have been added. Pvosta (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question, which of these sources is an independant secondary source? Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note See also Articles for deletion/International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers and Articles_for_deletion/CLIPSAS. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - don't be silly - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be uncivil. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep--Vidkun (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.