Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freemasonry Today


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry Today
this is nothing but a vanity page, and is really much closer to a dicdef than an encyclopedia entry. MSJapan 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to notability. --djrobgordon 18:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no point in having in article to advertise if they don't expand it.-- Andeh 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No pretence at notability. BlueValour 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In order to become a keep, the article would have to show notability. Here are some examples of how this might be done. I wrote this one based on this example and this one. I think the problem with applying any of these to Freemasonry Today is its inherent lack of notability, but I might be wrong. Inter lingua  talk 02:54, 18 June 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.