The result was delete as a fundamentally OR list with arbitrary inclusion criteria, whose sources (when they were in the article) didn't match the claims attributed to them. Jayjg (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
The result was delete as a fundamentally OR list with arbitrary inclusion criteria, whose sources (when they were in the article) didn't match the claims attributed to them. Jayjg (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply