Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies

:{{la|List of the occult secret societies}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|List of the occult secret societies}})

Non-notable list, making claims which seem to have a degree of original research to them from a small number of sources. Not entirely convinced the sources are reliable either, and this seems to be slightly unencyclopedic to list "secret occult societies". One source is just a list of "See also" topics, another is a deadlink, another is a forum post for an online game. There is a book reference, but it doesn't seem to really say too much about the topic here.

Prod was contested with a couple of hours to go. Taelus (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Not notable, exhibits a POV and original research, poorly sourced. (I applied the PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• :Addendum: The exchanges shown below only further amplify why this article should be deleted. These arguments will only continue if the article stays. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• :: Not that I disagree with you, but that would be an issue for Wikipedia:Editors for deletion. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• :::Or Wikipedia:Editors to be executed? :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• ::::: For those of you lacking in a sense of humor, please note the presence of a ":-)" in the remark above. It's a joke, for cryin' out loud! Some of you really need to get over yourselves. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• :::: or Wikipedia:Editors for Wikia ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I have cleaned up the list, citing four of the numerous encyclopedias which cover this ground. These citations establish the notability of the topic, as does the existence of the articles for which this list assists navigation. The suggestion that there is a POV or OR here seems too vague - what POV, what OR? The only issue which seemed to require attention was to ensure that we did not have a better list of this sort under a different title to which we might merge this. I've had a good look around and haven't found one so we should build upon this foundation. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The POV comes in the title itself, and the use of the word "occult." I can think of very few people who would put Freemasonry into the category of an occult group. Secret? Pretty much. Occult? That tends to lump it in t=with Jim Jones and such, and expresses a non-neutral POV. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::* See, for a few examples, [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1061953 Occultism and Freemasonry in Eighteenth-Century Europe], [http://mlq.dukejournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/10/1/99 Quest for Mysteries: The Masonic Background for Literature in Eighteenth-Century Germany], [http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0101-47142001000100002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en Alchemy, Occultism, Freemasonry: the gold and the hermetic symbolism of the crucibles]. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and rename List of secret societies. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I think that :Category:Secret societies covers this sufficiently. Based on the category, this page would have to contain hundreds of items. If this page and the category aren't identical then we have an issue of trying to keep them in sync; if they are identical then we have duplication.

  And to pile it on, go read Talk:Secret society—it becomes clear that any single list of what is/is not a secret society will be seen as biased and POV. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:* Please see WP:CLS which explains that categories are not superior to lists nor do they supersede them. One advantage of lists is that a source may be cited for each entry. This is useful if the classification is debatable, as contended in this case. This indicates that we should, if anything, remove the category. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

::*I never said one was superior to others. I simply said that, in this particular instance where we've already got a category, what does a list add to WP? Especially one that will clearly be contentious? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep If you want to find a list of occult secret societies, then this would be a good place to look. Quite helpful for people interested in researching this. You can easily find news stories and books mentioning something as a secret society with occult ceremonies and whatnot, before adding them to the list. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. If I wanted to find a list of the rowdiest dive bars, I'm sure List of rowdiest dive bars would be a good place to look too, but that doesn't make the topic encyclopedic. See, I thought the major problem with this article would be defining secret societies as "occult," but Dori makes a good point above that defining any society as "secret" is hard as well. At best, you could identify societies that have been called (by someone, or perhaps even self-described) as occult and secret, but then you would just have List of societies that have been called occult secret societies, which isn't very good material for an article. To go beyond that would require a judgment about whether a society is occult and secret, which we shouldn't be making. This is why List of terrorist organizations redirects to List of designated terrorist organizations—because there are government bodies which can and do designate groups as terrorist. And the governmental designation is actually meaningful; just because a news story or book author calls an organization "terrorist" wouldn't justify creating List of terrorist organizations, any more than similar stories might justify a flat-out title like List of head coaches who should be fired. If we want List of A's that are X, where X is at all controversial, and our reasoning is that some journalists have described them as X, then we should have List of A's that have been described as X. If we wouldn't settle for that, then we shouldn't take the article at all.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

::* People can and do argue about the classification of anything - is Pluto a planet?; is the EU a country? is rap music or poetry? is a Jaffa cake a biscuit? etc. This does not and should not stop us having lists of these things as such lists provide a service to our readers - helping them navigate to articles of this sort. Any borderline cases may be qualified and annotated accordingly and so the reader is informed rather than being left in the dark. Perfect is the enemy of good and it is our policy to tolerate imperfection. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete original research (that the mason's are on a list of occult societies is evidence of how badly conceived this is). To support a list like this we'd need some sort of consensus on its inclusion criteria, writ large, from multiple relialbe sources. There is no such consensus criteria -- and the words "occult" and "secret" have slippery meanings, used differently by different people in different contexts.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Occult according to Webster's online dictionary[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occult], means cut off from view, secret, mysterious. If used with the word "the", then it takes on a different meaning, The Occult meaning "matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them —used with the". I have been to a Mason lodge, and on the wall they had staffs with all sorts of symbols on them. I don't believe that occult rituals are as supernatural at they once were, the local group didn't seem to be, but it is still part of the organization. If you read about how their secret ceremonies take place, what religious and mystical oaths they take, and whatnot, it is clearly an occult, by the very definition of the word. As for as the word "secret", obviously, its a group that doesn't publicize all of their beliefs and rituals and activities. I don't think there is any doubt as what that means. Dream Focus 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Bali Ultimate's reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - In BG wiki article "live"! Pls i have the article is good! -- Denso 90 vn (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —
• Note to closing admin: Denso 90 vn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note I think the closer might believe its perfectly acceptable per guideline that the article's author might actually have an opinion and voice it in this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• We can discuss inclusion criteria, on the talk page, and what groups qualify and don't. Some of those removed, I believe belong there, but I'll find references before putting them back in. Dream Focus 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

: You know sweet FA about it, whatever funny symbols you saw on the wall of a lodge.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Article should vanish in a puff of logic and/or disappear up its own paradox because clearly any organisation mentioned on this list has dismally failed to be any kind of secret.   pablo_hablo. 23:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per Bali Ultimate. RFerreira (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per nice cleanup and continue further expansion and sourcing that have allowed this list of notable "secret societies" to meet WP:LIST. This a list that should be encouraged for further WP:IMPROVEment and expansion per sources. Considering deletion in the face of WP:ATD does not allow it to meet its WP:POTENTIAL, and diminishes Wikipedia. Comparisons with non-existent lists is interesting, for if those topics had the wide coverage in sources as do these "secret societies", they too might meet inclusion criteria. No matter the topic, it is the coverage of such in numerous reliable sources... books, academia, press... that allow them to meet WP:N. That digression aside, I note that this particular discussion is about a specific list that DOES have sources that meet the WP:GNG and so merit expansion to further improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't buy it. The list is indiscriminate and equating them is WP:Synthesis. These orgs are not all that secret, and some don't exist anymore (or were not secret when they did exist). What does "the occult" add to the title? Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Indicriminate? Hardly. The article title is quite clear. And it matters not that whether some do not now exist, nor that they may now be less "secret" than they once were. This list would do well to also include the various Hellfire Clubs and The Beggar's Benison, as being "occult" ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occult per Webster, transitive verb: to shut of from view or exposure], not "The Occult") and "secret" (per in not be generally known or accessible to the public) for their times. That they are known and written about NOW is what grants and establishes their notability per WP:LIST. Discussing a different article title does not require deletion of sourced content. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• The Templars and Hospitallers were exceedingly well known during their existence. Any Christian man could join. The successor to the Hospitallers, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, has a seat at the UN, fer Pete's sake. And the WP:Synthesis] argument is valid. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ah.., so they were "secret" and "occult" from non-Christians? And some are now widely known when they once were not widely known? Your arguments reaffirm that there is historical notability established as well.... and academia is still unsure of the Templars inner workings (shut of from view or exposure) despite the Templar name being widespread. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

:::* Whether the societies still exist or have been transformed is irrelevant because Wikipedia commonly presents a historical view of such topics. The point of the word occult is to indicate that these societies concerned themselves with supernatural or esoteric mysteries. This distinguishes them from secret societies of a revolutionary or criminal nature such as the Black Hand or Mafia. We might generalise the list, as suggested above, to be a list of all secret societies and then the issue is moot. Such development is not assisted by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

::::*Comment'. My problem is not so much with the sourcing but the implied equivalence of these orgs. That's what WP:Synthesis forbids. Abductive (reasoning) 09:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::* So the article title might be better without the debated word (and meaning) of "ocult" in this instance? It does not always mean withcraft and devil worship. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no external source to validate either the defintion of "an occult secret society", nor to provide verifiable source that could justify the inclusion of any of the list's members in accordance with WP:Source list. This list is sloppy revisionism at its worst. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• : Sources are easy to find. Search Google news, Google books, and Google scholar for "occult" "secret society" and then the name of the group listed. If credible books, historians, and major news sources refer to the groups on the list as such, then they get added. Dream Focus 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• :: But how does one decide which group to search by? (Hint: that's the OR.) Abductive (reasoning) 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• ::: It's absurd. They're currently claiming in the list that skull and bones, the knights templar, the hospitalers and the freemasons are all "occult" societies because they've found an example of this claim being made in writing. Of course, what conspiracy theorist morons write and what academic historians write are not equal, and in all these cases there is no "consensus" that any of these groups were "occult" (and while we can fight out whether various crusader orders were secretly mithraic cults searching for magical power, there is no fight to be had on "secret." There wsa nothing secret about the Templars, it's leadership, or its rank and file). Wikipedia now has an article that is broadcasting "facts" that are in fact lies, and feeding the conspiracy theories of the semi-educated. It's awful.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• :::: There seem to be ample good sources for this topic. For example. you dispute the inclusion of the Rosicrucians. Please see Encyclopedia Britannica which states "member of a worldwide brotherhood claiming to possess esoteric wisdom handed down from ancient times. The name derives from the order's symbol, a rose on a cross, which is similar to the family coat of arms of Martin Luther. Rosicrucian teachings are a combination of occultism and other religious beliefs and practices, including Hermeticism, Jewish mysticism, and Christian Gnosticism. The central feature of Rosicrucianism is the belief that its members possess secret wisdom that was handed down to them from ancient times." This respectable source seems quite adequate to support inclusion in this list which is primarily for navigation and does not present any novel thesis. The characterisation of this matter as the work of morons seems to be uncivil ranting based only on opinion, not supported by sources of any sort. The case against is therefore just WP:RUBBISH which is both counterfactual and inadequate to support deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• ::::: Red herring. My objection to Rosicrucianism was that it's an ideology not a society. But lets focus on the patent nonesense, shall we: Templars, Hospitalers, Skull and Bones, Freemasons.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as this discriminate example of unoriginal research has a neutral point of view while avoiding synthesizing containing information in a reference section that is verfiable through numerous reliable sources. No actual reason for deletion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT just does not cut it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: An article like this is quite libelous, not are we only claiming these group are secretive, but into the occult as well. And also appears to be a collaborative synthesis. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_occult_secret_societies moved] discussion to talk page Ryan4314 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per cleanup efforts and reliable sources. Every word appears referenced now. I would have no problem renaming the page to List of secret societies as per the suggestions above. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note to closing administrator this article has gone through significant improvements since it was first put up for deletion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_occult_secret_societies&action=historysubmit&diff=342934463&oldid=341087836] The 8 references added cite books, 6 of the references cite encyclopedias. Thank you. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note to closing administrator it is still fallacious and wrong in almost every respect -- in fact more wrong information has been added, making it far worse and illustrating why this list should not be kept. The masons and skull and bones are not "occult" (and one can argue if the masons are truly a "Secret society" -- S&B is about as secret as any fraternity.). The Templars and Hospitalers were not "secret" in any way, and the generally accepted scholarship is that they weren't "occult." That there have been claims of "occult" involvement for these groups at various times is true, and these fringe theories are discussed in their articles. But to create such a list and to include a group is to claim that something is an established fact when, in fact, the academic consensus is that the opposite is the case.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin It can be seen from this discussion, and the battlefield mentality being created aside, that it has devolved into arguments based upon perceived definitions of the word "occult". Though intended herein as the transitive verb meaning "shut off from view or exposure", editors confuse it with its usage as a noun with a supernatural connotation. It has been suggested and ignored many times on this page that the word "occult" be removed from the article title so that the article might then better reflect a listing of notable societies whose inner workings are generally "shut off from view or exposure". There's no need to continue bickering over the meanng of a word when the word itself need not be used. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Per lack of objective inclusion criteria. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Only socities. Only secret socities. Only secret socities allegedly interested in the occult. Only secret socities allegedly interested in the occult as asserted by published books is a pretty objective inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• There are books that say jews belong to a secret society interested in the occult. Ditto for Muslims. Ditto for books on the british royal family, etc, etc. Shall we include them all? There are books that say there's a secret cabal of satan worshipers at the heart of the United Nations. In your world, if it's published it's verified, so shall we put all them in?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone would call a billion people (Muslims) a secret society. We can use common sense here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete -- sourcing is questionable, and a category would be better suited for this -- in fact, don't the categories in question already exist? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights are not secret or occult, they are catholic chivalric orders. Article is fringe.--Yopie (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with all the deletion reasoning so far, but there's also a real problem here in the use of "occult" - it really means "hidden" (as was noted), but has come to mean "Satanic" or "evil" depending on context. When in its proper usage, everything is "occult", as there is no organization in the world that is fully public - go ask your local supermarket for their sales figures for the month, or ask if you can go to the board meeting at your local bank, and see what happens. To do anything else by way of the other definition is POV, because it require a subjective value judgment that seems to be driven more by conspiracy theory and fanciful thinking than anything else. MSJapan (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Objective reality of available sources: This article could reasonably be reworked to something on Occult secret societies per WP:PRESERVE. Such mainstream sources as the For Dummies series discusses the specific subject of [http://books.google.com/books?id=4htx62wIXIgC&pg=PA199&dq=occult+secret+societies&cd=2#v=onepage&q=occult%20secret%20societies&f=false occult secret societies] in full chapter format. Moreover, [http://books.google.com/books?id=xAmMNnJlfnoC&pg=PA278&dq=occult+secret+societies&cd=5#v=onepage&q=occult%20secret%20societies&f=false published encyclopedias] use that specific phrase as well. We can debate what should and should not be included in such a list, but no one can deny that the subject of "occult secret socities" has been covered in reliable mainstream sources and is encyclopedic per the sources available. What that means is because we have a legitimate basis for an article and that no irrefutable reason for outright deleting exists, the next step is to consider whether or not to merge/rename to List of secret socities and/or Occult secret socities? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Quoting from the source you so kindly provide above: "...modern Freemasonry was developed by Englightenment thinkers, who specifically rejected superstition and the occult -- which is what makes allegations that Freemasonry is occult somewhat comical."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• We could always retitle as "alleged occult secret socities" or in a larger article on the subject, i.e. Occult secret socities, include a section on ones mistakenly associated with the occult as verified in such reliable sources as the one cited above. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - "alleged" is another subjective judgment (and thus POV), as is "mistakenly". As a matter of fact, it is debatable as to whether any organization that files tax forms is really a "secret society." There is simply no way to address the inability to make an objective statement in favor of a secret society being such, because the necessity of coverage wouldn't make it a secret anymore. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• If we have a published book that makes a claim or cites a claim made by another, it is not subjective on our part to acknowledge that that source makes such a claim. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• How about List of people alleged to be assholes? I can find lots of citations from books to populate such a list (or a category, or we could double our fun and have both).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, per Bali, per Ryan, Pablo and all the other reasonable people. And specifically contra all those people who [removed]. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• I removed part of your comment per WP:RPA. The civil summary is "those people who are inclusionists". --Enric Naval (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Delete... Someone is citing sources without actually reading them. I checked several of the cited sources (especially the ones on the various medieval orders) and they did not even come close to supporting inclusion in this list. I have cut those sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Deeply unsourced and POV. Certainly some groups (Templers, Illuminati, the Tuffty Club) have been accused of being secret societies (and some are, at least in terms of things like membership), some have been accused of having occult connections. But there is no clear evidanace that they are Occult secret societies (after all be infernace if they are secret so are thier doctorins). I also notice that the lead does not say that to be included they have to have known to have, or reported to have, occult connections.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment this is only a recent article, has one similar been created before? I would have thought such an article would have been an early choice. I have not looked into the subject but would have thought it a feasible one - Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn springs to mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sources are junk, list inherently POV, categories can be used without needing to maintain a separate page. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. What is occult is inherently POV. Besides, the list has been hacked down to one entry precisely because of that. Pcap ping 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete- I think it's been shown beyond doubt that this list is inherently unable to be treated in a neutral synthesis-free manner. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. We seem to have managed to allow an awful lot of lists which exist to push a certain POV. If there is any debate over whether something meets the list criteria, particularly (though not exclusively) when it could be seen as negative, it should not be included. If there is debate about whether a certain organisation is occult or not than that can be covered on the articles page (provided we give appropriate weight to the subject etc etc). What we should not have is a list acting as a 'street of shame'. Quantpole (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per crowd. Note that the current list has only one entry, and it's a highly questionable one. PhGustaf (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• delete per ShadowRange. Viridae^Talk 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Whatever this article originally looked like, its a joke at this point. One listing with a "citation needed" and then a "see also" link? The concept is one on which I could see a worthwhile article being created, but it seems to be among that category of articles that wikipedia editors will never agree upon (some will find it useful, or at least unoffensive, others will believe it evil to their very core) and could only be written by an individual (and thus not here). Such an article could only exist if it collates a list of groups, each of which have individual articles that each have citations that would define them sufficiently as an occult secret society to justify their inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Some people seem to be attacking the Article Rescue Squadron, without any legitimate reason. A handful of people that are active in it, tried to help an article, seeking out references for things listed in it, and discussing things as is appropriate. I did find notable references for Skull and Bones, the only thing I added to the list, and at present the only thing currently on the list. The Templar knights apparently had all the occult things accredited to them by their enemies, as an excuse to be rid of them, and take their wealth. Everything else that was on the list, is found in many books, but its debatable which are credible and which are not. There are many occult secret societies out there, Google news search showing plenty of hits for "occult" and "secret societies" [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22occult%22+%22secret+societies%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a], most of them nameless brainwashing groups operating in various nations, and only mentioned when a notable military figure uses it for his own gain. Dream Focus 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• : The only thing you added to the list was Skull and Bones, eh. Hmmm. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_occult_secret_societies&action=historysubmit&diff=342810809&oldid=342810510]. There's a word for what you just did, it's on the tip of my tongue...Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• :: I added one new thing, is what I meant. Yes, I restored something originally, since it had references. There was discussion about how valid those encyclopedias were. I didn't try to revert it again, not sure what makes an encyclopedia notable or not, there plenty of references, but I not able to find one I'm certain is valid, for anything other than for Skull and Bones. Dream Focus 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• ::: The main reference for most of the things previously listed, was a publication found to have made some mistakes, the authors retracting what they said about one church, and there lawsuits against them in the news. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Encyclopedia+of+cults+and+new+religions%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a] A simple enough mistake. Dream Focus 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As the 'list' is currently apparently empty, I can't help wondering if the societies in the list are so occult (= hidden} and secret that they are concealing themselves from the view of us mere non-illuminated nor elucidated (nor even hermetic) peasants. If this is the case, there is probably little we can do against such might and power. If, on the other hand, they have merely been removed for assorted reasons, then there is little point in the list existing. Come to think of it, that applies in the first case too, doesn't it? Peridon (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Nah... it is more down to earth than that... the societies were removed because there were no reliable sources that backed inclusion in the list. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Only because the article (as of now) is completely empty. Warrah (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

:*Wow, I had to get a screengrab of that for future researchers.[http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k225/milowent/occultsecretsocieties.jpg]--Milowent (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

::Now that is secret. And occult. Reminds me of List of air guitars.   pablo_hablo. 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE... yeah... the article has undergone a lot of WP:HANDLE editing since this AfD was filed... the closing admin will have to go back through the article history to see what was listed and why it was removed. 15:06, 13 February 2010 (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.