Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master ad Vitam


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Sourcing is insufficient. Star  Mississippi  02:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Master ad Vitam

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This doesn't seem to have received significant attention from independent (non-masonic) sources. Could be a redirect to Scottish_Rite, but doesn't have the notability for a separate article. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - In general articles on Masonic degrees are sorely lacking on Wikipedia to the point where it isn't a very good source of information on Freemasonry. Even the basic ritual structure is hard to figure out from the Wikipedia articles, which are in sore need of revisions. Also instead of having these giant articles with poor structure and organization, I am hoping to craft smaller pieces to try to clear up the issues, but it is going to take a while.
 * Scottish_Rite#degree structures is a big part of the problem - It has about 60+ different degrees smashed into a chart that is hard for anyone to understand.
 * Full disclosure, I'm both a member of the Scottish Rite and a Freemason - But the current slate of articles needs a larger organizational revision in some places. Jjazz76 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't address the basic issue, that this degree doesn't seem to have the necessary attention from non-Masonic sources to warrant an article here. If no one else has taken such an outside interest in these degrees, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Fram (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of stuff on Wikipedia that doesn't have much if any "outside" interest. Pretty much most religious topics are relevant in for that religion but other folks outside would say "who cares."
 * Again I'll wait for the discussion to conclude, but there is plenty that has been written on this degree. Just look at the cited sources as a start.
 * Instead of trying to delete Wikipedia, which seems to be your long term strategy, how about actually build it out? Do the work instead of critiquing others. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete on account of evidently insufficient independent notability. Arguments to the effect that "other such stuff also exists here" do not cut it; neither do assertions that "we need to expand coverage on this". Still, we could graciously merge what in terms of sourcing can be salvaged to the article Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, Northern Jurisdiction, USA. -The Gnome (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.