Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Honor


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED .  18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Knights of Honor

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

Non-notable group. Having existed does not make something notable. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  06:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep. Having existed doesn't make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but being written about in a specialist encyclopedia, as shown by the source, does per Five pillars. Please also note that the source is out of copyright, so the fact that this has been copied is not a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThere is a history here that is notable. There seemed to be a split in the early 1900's over some death benefits etc. No time right now to continue investigation but will advise later and add to article.--Buster7 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Question. How is this discussion affected by the fact that this article is lifted, pretty much word for word, from its solitary source?  Un  sch  ool  02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason that should affect the notability of the subject. JulesH (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Question: The "solitary source" mentioned above is the website of the Kansas State Library. The cited web page appears to be directly quoting a source published in 1912, thus putting it (the 1912 source) in the public domain. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The source we have may be a good one with a high reputation, but it's only a single source, and presents a view of the subject that's inherently biased (i.e., the only local chapter mentioned is in Kansas, because that was the focus of the source).  We should have more than this.  I'm assuming from Buster7's contribution above that he has found additional sources, but would be grateful if he would list some of them so we can evaluate them. JulesH (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this would suggest that enough WP:RS could be had. — Ched (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Ched. Sources appear to be reliable and verifiable. The Knights of Honor does not appear to be a major organization, but I believe that it's worth keeping. At the risk of saying Other Stuff Exists, Wikipedia's bar of notability seems to be far below the notability of this organization. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:57, 15 February 2009 (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.