Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Master (order)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Master (order)[edit]

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

Unsourced for almost eight years, and unencyclopedic. The article is simply a listing of types of groups that have an officer by this title, and says nothing about the duties of the office (which really aren't explained anywhere, even for well-known groups like the Knights Templar). The utility is therefore very debatable, and is really nothing more than a fluffed-out DICDEF. MSJapan (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - It's not a very good article, there are a lot of groups that use this term and the article does not even begin to cover all of them. Looks like a fork of the Templar articles, but I can't be sure. might need some TNT. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because function is notable. The article needs improvement, but subject is well documented.--Yopie (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being unsourced for eight years is not a reason to delete (WP:NOEFFORT). Nor is being "unencyclopedic" (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). The subject is notable, a featured article could be written on it. (WP:Deletion is not cleanup) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as know it is notable from experience. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.