Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Of The North

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 Delete. Shimeru 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Of The North

Knights Of The North (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an article about a non-notable group that also violates WP:NOT an ad service. It is claimed as a think-tank with numerous papers published, but only one is known. The anon who removed the prod seems to think WP (rather than at the end of their "numerous papers") is where to tell readers about KOTN. As the same author created Masonic Magazine (also nn) where KOTN publishes, there is a likely COI here as well, as MM is a self-published magazine. MSJapan 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

KOTN has, in fact, published almost 30 papers, not one. As the author of the WP article, I am NOT the publisher of Masonic Magazine, although I have contributed to it, and I have put these entries on WP without the permission, guidance or knowledge of Stephen Dafoe. Also, in spite of your comments above, masonic magazine is not a self-published magazine of the KOTN. Dafoe started it under a different title at least five years ago, long before the KOTN was formed. He had no association with the group until a year ago.

With the paper Laudable Pursuit rapidly circulating in Masonic circles and being used as Masonic education in lodges across the US and Canada, more Grand Lodges are looking to the paper for legislation (Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin have all implemented concepts directly out of Laudable Pursuit in 2006-2007). The writings of this group individually and collectively certainly meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Because the KOTN issue papers as a group, it is important that regular, recognized Masons know they are dealing with regular, recognized Masons. In addition, as a group of published authors in widely circulated Masonic magazines and books published by mainstream (non-Masonic) publishers, the KOTN collectively are notable for that reason alone for their membership and leadership. You might argue that they should not be categorized as a Masonic Organization on Wikipedia, but the listing should remain to inform readers of their papers just who and what they are (and are not).

The KOTN has actually done a lousy job of promoting themselves, but LP has done a pretty good job of making its way around the country on its own steam without their self-promotion. While the initial group was less than 10 members, there are at least 28 at this point, and the overarching group's name has always been used as a shorthand way of referring to them, and not as a way to hide. Members have readily identified themselves for years. Your comment on the KOTN discussion page that they are "unaware that their ideas don't work for everyone" screams to me that you have a personal bone to pick with them, not a reasonable reason for removing the article. You may not like or agree with their opinions, but that's no reason to remove this listing. Grand Lodges, Grand Encampments, the Cato Institute, Proctor and Gamble and the Democratic Party are "unaware that their ideas don't work for everyone" too. That's a specious contention.

I put up the article because there is a natural reaction on the part of people who come across the paper to want to know if they are dealing with regular, recognized Masons, or with some bogus bunch of "we'll make our own Grand Lodge" upstarts (i.e. the UGLA). I am well aware that Wikipedia is not a Masonic encyclopedia, but part of it's mission is to provide up to date, topical information. The KOTN has nothing it is "selling," but its articles and authors are influencing Grand Lodges and individual lodges in the US and Canada. Now, if you think the article is one sided, or that it needs to identify the known members to lend it credibility, that's fine, I'll go digging for them. I was avoiding that, partially, for privacy issues, and partially because it would look like ego stroking for them to mention them by name. In a report like "It's About Time" from the Masonic Service Association last year, the MSA was the author, and no one tried to make sure they listed the individuals on the committee every time it was discussed. They are listed if anyone wanted to really find out, but MSA issued it as an organization.

Again, one paper does not make the KOTN notable, but as a group they seem to be making a sudden splash in the Masonic world, and Masons who fret about their sources being regular and recognized get very concerned about knowing who they are and where they came from. I simply thought Wikipedia was a good place to inform them of that. The KOTN has nothing to sell, and is not open to solicited members. It is by invitation only, charges no fees, has no elections, and gives its papers away for free. I am unsure what tangible benefit this article brings to them, apart from clearing up questions that are asked by Masons about their origin and regularity. Frumious Bander 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If Masons fret about regularity, why do the KOTN not say who they are in their own works? Wikipedia is not appropriate for "clearing up questions"; it is for encyclopedic material that can be found elsewhere. I don't think it's an accident that Hodapp (a KOTN from Indiana) can get LP used as a basis for use in his own jurisdiction. I would think that many of the other KOTN mebers pushed their work in their own jurisdictions - that's false notability. It's used in those jurisdictions because members of those jurisdictions wrote it. I'm also not convinced this isn't self-marketing; when there's no names attributed, and someone goes "hey look at this" on an ML, how do wwe know they didn't write it? I also don't think 5 jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic qualify as "a big splash", out of 50. Lastly, considering you want this article to "clear up questions" that apparently aren't answered anywhere else, it violates WP:OR as well. Did you even read the relevant WP policies before you made any of your articles? If you did, you might see why I nominated this for AfD, and it's not personal at all; WP has very specific guidelines for articles, and this one does not meet them. MSJapan 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Indiana's the one place they really seem to dislike these guys! I dunno, having a measurable influence on 10% of US Grand Lodges in two years sounds pretty good to me, but I guess you're the judge. To my knowledge, they don't have members in those states listed above outside of Indiana, but I'll see. To my knowledge, apart from the original paper LP, they've been signing their work and identifying themselves ever since. Again, I'd be happy to put the names I know up on the WP article - I didn't before because I figured that was violating WP guidelines for notability. Yes, I've read the guidelines, but as I look across WP, they seem to be applied with great variation, and what I see doesn't always jibe with what the guidelines say. So I am confused. I'm not part of their group, but I put the article up because they seem to be notable by my reading of the rules around here. You seem to disagree. I'm not fighting you on it. You want to dump all of the articles, feel free. I have no real dog in this fight, apart from trying to be informative about some folks who seem to be having some positive influence in the Masonic world.Frumious Bander 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to chime in as one who stumbled onto this article through a link. Frumious Bander above has made the points I would make, but might I add that there seems to be a considerable amount of disagreement within the Masonic world about where Masonry should be heading in the future. The KOTN are clear in where they think it should go, from a review of their material, and they are therefore attacked on spurious questions of notability by those who do seem to have a dog in the fight. Yesterday, several friends were speaking about the Algonquin Round Table, which is clearly notable. It is much like the KOTN in that there is a lot of talk and not a lot of structure, and would have been questioned as to notability in its day by those outside the circle, who looked on with dislike or, most likely, envy that they were not invited to join in. Wikipedia gives those disposessed medicrities an opportunity to spitefully make claims as to notability, and to push organizations such as the KOTN, which have nothing to sell and are gaining nothing from such a listing, out of the limelight in the small ways open to them. I would note also that MSJapan was a key in deleting an earlier article on the KOTN in September 2006, and "traditionalized" several other Masonic entries.68.148.178.158 05:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since you're writing your own bio on WP as-is, and you are a member of KOTN, don't you think you have a bit of a COI in commenting here as a supposedly innocent IP? I say this because the only articles you've ever worked on are R. John Hayes and SportAbility Alberta which Mr. Hayes was executive director of, plus you know he's a member of KOTN, as well as what KOTN is, when the members apparently don't identify themselves (hence the supposed need for this article). MSJapan 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP To coin a Reagan-ism, "Well, there you go again." The members do readily identify themselves, beyond the initial internet presentation of their first paper. Its continued circulation in its original form has taken on something of a life of its own, so the anonymous nature of it lingers. But in other venues, such as Masonic Dictionary articles, no one is hiding there. And in my experience, I seem to see their open identification throughout various online forums. As for notability, I have to point to their being invited to speak around the country outside of their jurisdictions on the topics their papers address. As I said before, if the anonymity thing is your big beef, I'll dig up the members' names that I can, but I figured there'd be a storm of criticism over that as some kind of improper notability violation or shameless pimping for speaking gigs. You tell me. These guys aren't selling anything - hell, they don't even seem to be promoting their papers. Instead of just dumping the listing, you don't see a compromise on this? And if not, I can't help calling foul again. I can understand shutting off irregular, unrecognized and clearly agenda-driven destroyers like the bogus UGLA or RGLE that are masquerading as massive movements when they are nothing but three angry guys in the back of an Atlanta Starbucks. By contrast, the KOTN guys seem to be operating within regular, recognized Masonry, and attracting notice through little (or no) self-promotion. If your gripe is simply over their message, then I really question your clearly biased qualification in making a judgement for WP. Frumious Bander 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Adm58 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No attestment of passing WP:N. - Aagtbdfoua 02:52, 2 April 2007 (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.