Talk:Order of Knight Masons

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Order of Knight Masons article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Freemasonry Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

References needed

Nice article... but we need secondary sources to support what is said in the article. This is important for two reasons... one is WP:Verifiability (a reader needs to be able to verify that what is said in the article is accurate). The second is WP:Notability. We need to establish that the Knight Masons are a Notable organization (as notability is defined by Wikipedia). To do that, we need to show that someone (other than the Knight Masons themselves) has taken note of, and talked about the organization... ie we need a secondary source or two. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - It is now A year and a half later... and the article still does not cite a single secondary source. I am beginning to think that the problem may be that none exist. Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]