Deletion of Order of Gimghoul

Comment: I accept the summary of the records, available http://www.lib.unc.edu/mss/uars/ead/40262.html here, for purposes of  to the extent of any assertion contained in the summary (although not for anything verifiable only by going to the library and looking at the records).  Furthermore, http://www.raleighchronicle.com/2006103100.html this newspaper article is a reliable source for the organization's existence and its ownership of the castle.  (The article quotes Wikipedia for some points, but the ownership was verified by "a real estate agent in Chapel Hill who did some research on the property
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I think the actual items are restricted, so we only can trust that they are accurately catalogued and would be useful if we could see them.  I don't think that is good enough for 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I saw the summary, and I'll accept it gives credibility to the existence of the order, but I don't think there's anywhere near enough depth to establish .  The article is so vague at present, and I don't think the castle is notable on its own.  The problem seems to be "secret" and notable are such opposites
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)