Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahabone


 * 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. Harro5 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Like this:Grye 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mahabone

 * DeleteThis "word" is not a real word, merely the speculation of one author in one book, and is clearly not encyclopedic. There is also no way to make it encyclopedic. MSJapan 23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with MSJapan, above. Millennium Sentinel 23:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: at best a dicdef? Certainly not encyclopædic.—Stombs 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or transclude to Wikitionary.--SarekOfVulcan 06:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is probably a violation of WP:POINT, come to think of it. --SarekOfVulcan 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Or not. Maybe.


 * DeleteThis has no place in the dictionary. It is not a real word.
 * Comment anonymous vote by User:67.185.0.123, a user with 9 edits.


 * Keep It is not a mere speculation of one Author, since the article includes 4 different sources. It is a real word, since several people are using it. Additionally it seems, by looking at their userpages, that MSJapan, Millenium Sentinel and SarekOfVulcan are members of Freemasonry (by the logo with the letter G inside a square and a compass), as such they are just teaming together for spreading their own opinionated views on that subject stomping out other ones.
 * Comment anonymous vote by User:212.54.221.227


 * Comment I created a user account, I am the 212.54.221.227 poster Mahabone 13:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep (but improve) or merge with Freemasonry, 1000+ google hits, including books so the info is verifiable (this site is useful, and the anonymous author above may sound like a mad conspiracy theorist but he's right 3 of the votes do appear to be freemasons! organized campaigns, to keep or delete, always seem susipicious to me. Zzzzz 19:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Grye 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTE: ya ever wonder why there's about 15 screens of talk about an article only 1/2 screen long?
 * ''Because people are too interested in seeing it there at all, with critic's citations, than to actually write an article. Grye


 * The article has citations from four different books, including one written by an ex-member of that cult. What do you define as 'real citation'? User:212.54.221.227 (unsigned) MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (MSJapan note:  He refers to William Morgan, whose membership was never proven, and referring to Masonry as a cult clearly shows an agenda)


 * Delete --NaconKantari 20:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with Freemasonry or related, where secrecy/the "Mason Word" is discussed. Rd232 talk 11:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, even if the "word" is a hoax, it well enough suffused in popular culture to deserve an entry of some kind. On the question of "real citations" I can only refer to No true Scotsman. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cite the "infusion into popular culture" that you speak of. Third degree is. this word is not. Grye


 * The word has been associated, for some unknown reasons, with freemasonry since more than 150 years at least (read the publication dates of the referenced books). Additionally it returns more than one thousand hits on google alone. This is enough to classify it as an "infusion into popular culture". User:212.54.221.227 unsigned (MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC))


 * again with your "1000 hits". A few several of those were yours. A couple of those hits were you seeing how many hits there were. And finally, 1000+ Google hits 1) is nothing for a Google-searched page, & 2) Google is not a citable source, at least not in this context. Oh, & no, it is not enough to "classify it as an infusion into popular culture", not only because net users, I'm sorry, the sub-catagory Google net users, are not really "popular", in the "in crowd of society" sense of the word. Grye 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I got 468 hits on Google myself, some of which are unrelated, and most of which are book links to either Born in Blood or Mahabone, both of which are speculative in the extreme when it comes to the word. MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's some webpages that list that word, relating it to freemasonry, somehow:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/dun/dun09.htm http://mazeministry.com/resources/books/doombook/doomtext/14melchizedek.htm http://www.advweb.com/kw/misc/misc/kw_ncrm.html http://www.bannerstrade.com/raremasonic.html http://beachsidechurch.com/jesus/heals4.html http://iantiquedeals.com/Antique/Antique-Books/American-Antique-Books

I've even found T-shirt and bumper stickers with MAHABONE on it, but I would save them for later. mahabone


 * What do they cite for their sources? The abovementioned books? If anything? Grye
 * BTW those little tilde thingies sign your statements. Grye


 * The ISTA link is Duncan's Royal Arch Monitor. Royal Arch is not part of mainstream Masonry, and in fact starts on the 4th degree.  It's certainly not pop culture.


 * Melchidzedek is something that looks like Masonry, but isn't, and is clearly meant to imply Satanism by being located on a ministry site for, presumably, "ex-Masons". Also not pop culture.


 * The third link is "Necromantic Origins of Freemasonry", once again attempting to claim Satan worship, and citing Morgan, no less. It plays with semantics to make a point, and is also written by an anonymous author.  Also not pop culture.


 * Bannerstrade has a list of a whole lot of thngs for sale, probably on auction sites. That is not popular culture, or else you need to claim the same for "rosicrucian".  That's not pop culture, that's collectibles.


 * Beachside Church's goal is also obvious: "recite this prayer if any of your ancestors were involved in Freemasonaray {sic). Also not pop culture.


 * iantiquedeals is an antiquarian listing site, which is also not pop culture.


 * I bet the church sells the shirts and bumper stickers? Now, let's try this again, shall we? Pop culture, by your definition, seems to be "evangelical Christian anti-Masonic material", which 98% of the world knows nothingg about. MSJapan 23:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It might not be mainstream pop culture, such as word like "dude" or "cool" but that word is still there.


 * Additionally you seem to confuse Masonry with Freemasonry, we already discussed about it. You seem to have it forgotten already.


 * I am neither anti-masonic, read my comments in the discussion Forum for Mahabone, and definitely neither christian. Those links are just what I did pop up in a few minutes of google search. Good you read them. You vandalized the article a few times on the allegations of Copyright Violation, Ethymology uncertainty, and 'speculations'. The article do not present any of mine speculations, but actual quotes from books that are more than a century old.


 * Please behave.


 * Actually, you've misbehaved several times over, if in no other way by violating the 3RR rule with edits [], [], & []. Check you user talk page, if you know how. If not, here's a clue. Grye 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the 4th revert that breaks the rule, not the third. He's still good.--SarekOfVulcan 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 pop culture 

Freemasons all, combined, including Blue (Craft) Lodge Masons, + York Rite Masons, + Scottish Rite Masons, +Every other Freemason, put together, in any given country or the world, & divided into the populations of same, are not, now, theoretically or actually, by definition, Pop Culture.

Grye 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 Masonry Vs. Freemasonry 

I don't know what planet some are from, but here on Earth it is usually acceptable to refer to Freemasons as Masons, especially when Freemasonry is clearly being referred to. Grye 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I know Serek is of Vulcan, but I think, maybe, that's true there too. Not sure though. Grye


 * Delete, the goings-on of Masons are trivial and unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

*:"Nice"? OK, yeah sure. Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will from hereon be know as Prisoner:62.1.195.1, now lights-out!....;-D Grye 15:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Nice article.


 * Keep, sounds like an interesting start. Peter S. 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, In John J. Robinson's 1989 book Born in Blood, he speculates on those works cited before him, and his work is re-hashed in other speculations that come after him. In other words it is all made up. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 22:14, 3 January 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.