Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Knight Masons


 * 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Order of Knight Masons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:ORG. The subject is a relatively small sub-organization within the broader framework of Freemasonry. A google search shows it to be based mostly in Ireland (with a few chapters in the US). Existence is not in question, but notability is... I can find no sources that are independent of the sub-organization itself. Even standard Masonic sources don't mention it. Merger may be an alternative to deletion, but I am not sure what the best merger venue would be (I could see some of the material being merged into our article on the Holy Royal Arch) Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It might be useful to do all those searches for the names of the various degrees within the KM, as well as "Green Degrees", which is another name for it, in order to exhaust the potential references. I'm not sure one way or the other on this one.--Vidkun (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is one of several obscure, often invitation-only Masonic organizations best described as appendant bodies of appendant bodies. Other such organizations include Order of Quetzalcoatl and Ye Antient Order of Noble Corks. The Knight Masons (not to be confused with the Knights Templar) are one of many of these organizations associated with the York Rite. My thought is to create an Appendant bodies of the York Rite article and merge this information into that along with the others.  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 21:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Faustus... before you create an article, see our article on the Allied Masonic Degrees which covers some of what you are talking about. Also... note the distinction between York Rite in the US, and Holy Royal Arch in the UK... its not quite the same thing.
 * The problem here is sourcing... before we write articles about various Masonic sub-orgs (whether individually or as part of an "Appendant bodies of..." article), please check to see that there are reliable independent sources that discuss the sub-groups in some depth. (we need sources from outside the sub-orgs... and ideally sources that are completely non-Masonic in origin). Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in my Talk, AMD and "Appendant bodies of the York Rite" are not necessarily the same thing. Perhaps independent sourcing only merits a mention of the Knight Masons (and/or the AMD, for that matter) in a more generalized article. If the necessary sourcing is there, then we should dispense with all this and vote to retain.  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 03:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the arguments to delete the article here only further support its need to exist. The Knight Masons would not fit clumped in with the HRA article because it's also open to Royal Arch Masons in the York Rite, it would not fit into the AMD article because trying to squeeze it into AMD is a uniquely American folly, and it really isn't considered closely associated with the York Rite as its degrees are more prominent in the Scottish Rite anyways. It is however the basis for the Order of the Red Cross, and portions of the Scottish Rite, and as such in notable in that respect alone. As for finding sources, Google books have a few, but it's going to take a trip to the library to read many of them PeRshGo (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that to lump Knight Masons into the Royal Arch or the AMD would be incorrect. However, to suggest the KM is an integral part of appendant body Freemasonry on a worldwide scale would be equally incorrect. It has NO BEARING whatsoever on the Scottish Rite or the KT Order of the Red Cross in the United States. I'd even go so far as to say most American York Rite Masons, even active ones, have never heard of the Knight Masons. So to keep worldwide scope intact, from a York Rite standpoint it's best to focus strictly on Royal Arch Masonry, Cryptic Masonry and Knights Templar, while keeping discussions of anything else ancillary.  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 08:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Focus, please.... the key issue here is whether there are reliable independent sources to support what we say about the organization. Without sources, our entire discussion becomes nothing more than a debate based on Original Research.  The differences between the US and Irish systems are irrelevant if there are no sources.
 * PeRshGo... you say that Google Books has some sources... could you identify what they are? I would be happy to withdraw the nomination (even temporarily) if sources actually do exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Order of Knight Masons serves as the foundation for both The Order of the Red Cross, and the 15th & 16th degrees in the Scottish Rite in the United States as well. The Order of the Red Cross specifically is nothing more than compressed Knight Masonry in order to fulfill the the traditional requirement for the Order of the Temple. As for Google books, this will have to do until I can track some stuff materials down.  PeRshGo (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will note that most of the sources that come up in that search are self-published by the Knight Masons themselves. Others (such as Freemasons for Dummies, which I have and was able to check), contain nothing more than a passing reference - not the substantial discussion that WP:NOTE and WP:ORG require.
 * That said, the search hits are enough for me to put the nomination on hold while we examine the sources in more detail. I originally tagged the article as needing sources a year ago, I am willing to be patient and give it another year... but I will renominate if the sourcing issue is not improved.
 * Nomination Withdrawn Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blue, you may as well keep the nomination as JASpencer's recommendation for delete will keep this open for admin closure after 7 days. Mkdw talk 09:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it? One would think a withdrawal by the AfD nominator would be a foregone conclusion. I'd NAC this, but I promised not to do that anymore. Too many people were upset ...  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It does. If you read the wording of WP:SK. This is also reflected in WP:WITHDRAWN - Speedy Keep NAC, "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. ". I only came across this myself after double checking the policy carefully. Mkdw talk 21:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Blueboar's right there are no independent sources here, despite the number of Google hits. Seems rather large for there not to be anything.   JASpencer (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  16:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One additional thought... I wonder if it is possible to separate the Degrees (ceremonies) that are conferred by this group from the group itself. The degrees are relatively old, dating to the 18th Century, and seem to have been precursors to (or at least had an influence on) some of the Scottish Rite degrees.  More importantly, there are sources that mention them. (I am not sure it rises to the level of being notable enough for a stand-alone article... but if not, I think there is enough to justify a section in the Scottish Rite article).
 * The Order (as an organization), on the other hand, is significantly more modern... it was created in the mid to late 20th Century as a place where the old (obsolete) degrees could be resurrected, preserved and performed. And there do not seem to be many sources that discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As you well know trying to separate "The Order" from the degrees is a very difficult process as each degree itself is an order. It was an order unto itself within Irish preceptories when it was still conferred under that jurisdiction. In addition it is arguable that its influence is greater on Commandery than the Scottish Rite through the Illustrious Order of the Red Cross as that degree was created for the sole purpose of replacing the Knight Masonic or "Red Cross Degrees" requirement for the Order of the Temple. If there is any rationale for a Knight Masonry article it's that it can and should serve as a content fork for two major Masonic appendant systems. PeRshGo (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2012 (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.