Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Degrees of Freemasonry


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

99 Degrees of Freemasonry
New user User:Nork Evolk created an article about a book by Henning Klovekorn. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it's a self-promotion.
 * Delete as vanity advertisement. Gazpacho 05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough info and needs organized. Clay4president 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources to show notability. I agree its likely also vanity. Gwernol 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Several modifications have been made to change perception that the page is a self promotion excercise. The page now includes several points which the publication discusses (quite topical issues) and uses references. As for precedence in the matter, see Wikipedia entries for books such as the Hiram Key, they are not different to what has been placed here. Its a work in progress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.135.6.24 (talk • contribs).
 * Thank you for the additions. However they still don't address the basic issue of whether the book is notable or not. If the book had been reviewed by some independent and reliable source for example, then it would show notability. As it stands the references you added show notability for Freemasonry, but not for the book "99 Degrees of Freemasonry". Thanks, Gwernol 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication of notability, and the recent additions don't change that.  (Nork Evolk's work is most likely also ytinav.)  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  07:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note most of the text of the article is copied directly from the author's website at . The website is copyrighted, so this article is a copyright violation. I'm going to tag it as such. Gwernol 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright problem has now been resolved by the author of the article. However I still believe the notability, vanity and verifiability issues remain. Gwernol 11:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Only 5 ghits  - two on wikipedia, two on the author's website and one on myspace.  The article itself, as it was, didn't assert any form of notability, and the burden of proof is on the article to prove for itself that the subject is notable.  Seems like vanity and is definately nn.    M  a  rtinp23  12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Appears to be vanity/Copyvio Betacommand 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Copyvio... WP:VAIN, verifiabilty and sourcing problems, and general lack of notability for a book. kudos to Gazpacho for "cracking the code".--Isotope23 19:08, 22 August 2006 (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.