`  == Notability for fraternal accomplishments ==  Also, since you seem to have a fair bit of experience with WP:N, I really think we need to come up with some (more) solid guidelines for notability and such within the Freemasonry WP.  We're running into a lot of things that we aren't prepared for policy-wise.  I posted something on the notability board about ``fraternal accomplishments`` that wasn't addressed by anyone.  So the question is, can individual Project guidelines ``trump`` GNG?  My reasoning is this: we have too many people with a narrow view of the Fraternity (and perhaps fraternal organizations in general) who believe that people notable only in their organizations are notable in general, when in fact, said notability is temporary even for Grand Masters.  Therefore, I think we need to have a specific set of notability guidelines that addresses who is notable in Freemasonry and who is not in the specific case that there is no other claim to fame.  For example, in the colonial-era GLs in the US (as I'm sure you are aware), many GMs were also local politicians at some level (lots of state governors, for example), or fought in the American Revolution at a high rank.  In Europe and the UK, nobility ran the Fraternity early on (and in some cases still do, in a sense).  Therefore, they have another track of notability on WP, so we can throw in their GM-ship as a footnote no problem.    Modern GMs are just regular guys, mostly, especially in the one-year progressive lines.  Even in the Grand Encampment of KTUSA, which has multinational jurisdiction, the Grand Master only serves for three years, and there's not a lot of historical info available on anyone in the 20th century that would establish notability enough to override BLP1E or ``notability is not temporary``.  However, Thomas Smith Webb, Preston, Anderson, Elizabeth Aldworth, the founders of the Scottish Rite, the OES founder whose name I forget, Frank Land, etc., are notable for fraternal stuff, and there are plenty of sources for them if one looks.  There are also some modern researchers who squeak by for various reasons, but clearly there are places where we need specific guidelines, as the recent AfDs show.  In short, I want a set of guidelines that allow notability for ``fraternal-only`` stuff to be extremely specific about what is allowed.  Mainly, we need to reiterate that much of it is temporary, but we should also have some thresholds that, if passed, would meet guidelines.  Is this worth doing, and could we get it to be a subset of WP:N?  We also need to address SPS as per Masonic publishers, because an independent-of-a-Grand-Lodge Masonic specialty printer should not count as SPS for a Masonic author (contrary to what was stated by an editor).  There are a lot of religious, business, and other specialty publishers that are considered independent of their author, but it just happens that they are a major resource in their denominations/fields for related texts.  So should we be looking at separate guidelines for us, or just proposing extensions to the general corpus of WP guidelines?   `