Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 No Consensus. There are substantial GNG concerns about this article raised by the nominator and others favoring deletion, namely that they're doubtful that any of the sources are truly reliable and independent of the article's subject. This central point is rebutted by several individuals who also make good policy-based arguments. Though I personally have my doubts, the premise of some of these arguments aren't really challenged. With this in mind, there's no clear consensus on how to interpret the nature of the proffered sources. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One

The Law of One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has notability issues, whether you're looking at it from

WP:FRINGE really is the key here, in the absence of any neutral commentary on the topic. InShaneee (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You said "at least a dozen of those are by the creators of this philosophy (that includes the aforementioned book" but this is factually incorrect. The far majority of these sources have little or no relation to the creators of the philosophy. For most of these sources, their ONLY relation to the creators of the philosophy/religion is that they have written books commenting or citing the philosophy. To say that these secondary aren't critical is to admit that you haven't read these secondary sources. Many of these sources have strong disagreements with the creators of the philosophy/religion, and these disagreements are well known to anyone who has reviewed the sources, which you clearly have not. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This meets
WP:GNG
.
WP:ORG
characterization is way off and inappropriate.
Most of these sources are NOT self-published. If you want to claim that they are self-published you will need to cite some evidence.
Regarding the "walled garden" charge, what you are calling a walled garden is nothing more than stubs created literally in the last few days that could be elaborated on. Nominating them for deletion or characterizing them as a walled garden is overly harsh and amounts to an assumption of bad faith in conflict with
WP:FAITH
in this instance.
Regarding the previous articles that were slightly related to this article, the deletion discussion pages reveal precisely why they were deleted. Before I started editing this article I checked those pages to understand what the issue was, and there was a consensus that the subject matter was suitable for a wikipedia page but that the editors had failed in a number of ways, particularly due to
WP:FRINGE
. Due diligence is required before indiscriminately tagging articles for deletion. I have reviewed all the deletion discussions and agreed with the past decisions to delete. This latest article is completely different and contains none of the content from those past articles, and was written by entirely different authors. The latest article has addressed all the issues with the past articles. If a past deletion is to be used as evidence for future deletion, then any poorly written article would undermine any chance for a well written future article.
The key criteria at issue here is
WP:FRINGE
just as, for instance, moon landing hoaxes are notable.
I'm a primary editor on this article and one area of expansion is regarding the role that
WP:GNG
.
Finally,
WP:NPOV has been violated. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
I'll clarify that I applied
WP:FRINGE and the lack of media coverage. InShaneee (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The article is not about a "school of thought." It is specifically about a series of books. This is similar to, say, the Twilight series of books or the Harry Potter series of books. Five books were written, and the series as a whole was called "The Law of One"--similar to how the Harry Potter series of books is called "Harry Potter."
I don't understand your comment about "superfluous"--what does that mean? Before wasting my time improving this article I read over
WP:FRINGE
.
Media coverage is not a requirement for
WP:FRINGE
says, "To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." More than one reliable secondary source has commented on, disparaged, and discussed this series of books, therefore this series of books is sufficiently notable to merit a mention.
Reliability in this context refers to reliably discussing the contents of the book, not providing authoritative support for the claims of the book or something like that. The question is whether the secondary sources support the interpretation of the series of books as expounded in the article. The critical activity centered around this series of books is more than sufficient to qualify as "reliable sources" that are reliable enough to support the fact that these books made these claims. A bunch of popular books from popular, notable publishing houses discussing and criticizing this series of books is enough to satisfy notability. There is even some academic discussion that has been cited, though this academic discussion is not necessary to establish notability. Are you going to say that critical discussion from Dr. Stephen Tyman from Southern Illinois University, for instance, doesn't count as reliable critical analysis? Or that a New York Times bestseller that critically discusses the claims of the books (disagreeing with them) does not constitute critical activity?
The article is
WP:GNG. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
I cite Bilbo's argument above. --Neoconfederate (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I very much concur with what Neoconfederate said above. Deleting this article would not be a constructive move. ChakaKongtalk 12:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: please note that
    solicit sympathetic votes for this discussion. InShaneee (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I had not seen that statement nor met this user prior to finding this AFD. --Neoconfederate (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soliciting advice and support is NOT the same as soliciting votes. That project bills itself as a resource for people writing on non-conventional views. I'm making use of the resources that are available, not soliciting votes. This is clear in that I ask for advice rather than votes. I certainly hope it's acceptable for me to talk to other wikipedia editors and seek advice on how to operate within wikipedia rules! Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, Bilbobagginsesprecious contacted me to ask for my input in this matter. Allow me to state for the record that I would have been strongly against deletion regardless. The fact that this user left a brief message on my talk page should not be regarded as soliciting my "vote". ChakaKongtalk 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am an uninvolved editor who chanced across this discussion -- otherwise I have no interest in and have not read this article. The relevant Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Canvassing. Contacting other editors as described above may be perfectly OK or it may be canvassing. The question is what the editors contacted have in common -- in other words, why choose that particular set of editors to contact? I would like to solicit a couple of opinions from those of you who are familiar with this topic on this. Was it everyone who had edited a particular article or talk page or was it only those who are on one side of particular disagreement? Or something else? I am also going to ask you all to remain factual and not argue with each other when replying to this question. Someone will, no doubt, give an answer that you think is untrue. If that happens, a calm dispassionate reply filled with facts that I can verify is the way to go. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or keep. The following happens to me rather often: (a) I create a redirect from a redlink which I judge does not have the potential for a full article, (b) somebody goes ahead and creates an article anyway, (c) somebody notices there is no potential and has the article deleted, i.e. we are back to the (potential) redlink from which I started. Why, in such cases, can people not just treat this as a question of merge/redirect (restore my original redirect)? If you agree with my original judgement, it is within your authority as a Wikipedia editor to rearrange material to the effect that the page ends up as a redirect once again, without ever touching on the "deletion" process. Please consider doing that the next time: everybody wins: there is no "deletion debate" and the discussion takes place where it should, ostensibly as a discussion on content and its notability, and you still don't recreate a redlink if you succeed in merging/redirecting the problematic page. --
    dab (𒁳) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If articles like
WP:FRINGE
. Your argument against notability is based on "the hilarious state of the page." What does this even mean?
It makes no sense to merge this article into
WP:Ownership issues. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Is this what passes for
WP:NPOV editing? You couldn't be more insulting. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
I am not insulting you. I am assuming that you are wasting people's time for a laugh. Please stop doing that, ok? Also this edit makes abundantly clear that this is a problem of user conduct. It does not belong on AfD. The disruptive editors should be pointed out to active admins and the article should be restored to a halfway encyclopedic form, or failing that a mere redirect. We do not delete topics because they attract disruptive editing, we have other ways of dealing with this type of problem. --
dab (𒁳) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
now I've even been called a "vandal" for my efforts in cleaning this up. You cannot have a deletion debate where neither side is actually interested in what "deletion" means on Wikipedia. What we have here is disruptive editing on a topic that may be of marginal notability, or else may just be a sub-topic to
dab (𒁳) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
(In reply to your previous comment since you edited in the mean time) That's an insulting assumption to make about me. It amounts to an insult saying that my contribution to wikipedia is so laughable and pathetic that you can't distinguish it from parody. I'd have to be a complete idiot not to recognize the insult here, not the mention your other very overt insults on other pages. As far as the user conduct issue, that edit wasn't made by me and I don't know that person. I also, for the record, don't understand why that is considered a conduct issue, but that's because I'm new to Wikipedia. I can see why this website has such a reputation for treating its volunteers poorly. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(In reply to your most recent comment)So if I understand you right, you're saying that when I went through and added like 14 new sources I was vandalizing the page? I also tried to clarify some wording and added the 2012 sections including sources that I dug up. I just started on this like 3 or 4 days ago and my edits are so bad that you want me blocked for them? Wow. I know User:InShaneee is a respected member of the wikipedia community but I sure hope that your type is NOT. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • IMPORTANT: The article in its current state may not reflect what it once was when this AFD was filed. An editor is removing a significant amount of content (and possibly citations) from the article without clear explanation. Please view the article's history for details. --Neoconfederate (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing an article while an AfD is ongoing is completely permitted, particularly when the goal is to clean a page up.
Edit warring, however, is not permitted. InShaneee (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
We all know that. However, what shouldn't be permitted is deliberate sabotage and vandalism of an article. That's what I am warning against.--Neoconfederate (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only exception to
WP:3RR is deliberate vandalism, which this does not qualify for. This is a disagreement over content, and needs to be worked out on talk pages from here on out. InShaneee (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It's clear I've made a mistake. My apologies. --Neoconfederate (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where this differs from articles on notable fringe is there are no substantial third party references from outside them ovement; nobody has significantly noticed them but themselves. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debunked: That has already been proven false. Many of the sources are completely independent books. --Neoconfederate (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse a need for improvement with a lack of notability. The first is not a reason for deletion, the second is. I always argue to keep an article on a notable topic however bad it might be at the time. I have tried and failed to find coverage of this series of books in anything even close to what I consider a reliable source. Read
notability for books and then present a succinct, policy-based argument for keeping the article. And please concentrate on secondary sources that give the book substantial coverage and are editorially independent. Mcewan (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I've already listed these sources elsewhere. Here is a condensed list of the higher quality sources.
  1. Stephen Tyman A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution
    ISBN 978-0761833567
  2. David Wilcock The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations Behind the 2012 Prophecies
    ISBN 0-525-95204-7
  3. Rick Cook Return of the Aeons
    ISBN 978-1479364268[1]
  4. Jean-Claude Koven Going Deeper
    ISBN 978-0972395458[2]
  5. Jan Wicherink Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality.
    ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6[3]
  6. Wynn Free The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?. Frog Books.
    ISBN 978-1583940839[4]
  7. Gnosis (1995). The Inner Planes. A Journal of the Western Inner Traditions. Gnosis. Vol. 36. Gnosis.
I came up with these sources in the last few days. I'm sure I can find more, and if the article is not deleted, I will also provide direct quotes and page numbers. It makes no sense to me how you guys can claim that you can't find independent, reliable sources since I have cited these sources in the bibliography. All of these sources are completely independent from the creators of the series of books, and all of them engage in critical activity including disparagement, discussion, and criticism. Of these six books (that I just now picked out of the article's bibliography) only
The Law of One series seriously, and even he engages in critical activity! It boggles my mind that you guys can say no one outside their religion knows about them. I'm outside their religion and I heard about them through the 2012 phenomenon. I just started editing on January 19th and I haven't had time to develop sources more fully. I recognize that you guys aren't knowledgeable or interested enough to source this material in the 5 minutes of google searching that you devote to it. But I already know where to look and was engaged in that process when the article was flagged for deletion. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
By the way, Gnosis Magazine (
WP:NBOOK all of which I read before I wasted my time trying to document the secondary sources on this series.Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Thanks for that. I'll try and assess those over the next few days. Don't panic. This process takes at least a week. Mcewan (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the sources in the list that I could find and I am afraid that I am still convinced that this fringe book is not notable enough. I summarize what I found below, using the numbers from your list above
Number Author Comment Conclusion
1 Stephen Tyman I couldn't get a copy of this, but Google books has a snippets view with a search function. Neither 'Law of One" nor "Ra" had any hits. Inconclusive
2 David Wilcock (reincarnation of Edgar Cayce) This book has a verbatim quote from The Law of One detailing one of its authors experiences with a Mexican pschic healer. Nothing about the main substance at all, or 2012, and nothing to support the 'Key role' claim above. Too passing a reference to count
3 Rick Cook Not yet published see author's blog Discounted
4 Jean-Claude Koven He states that reading Ra's words left him "in a state of psychic shock for nearly 2 weeks" and that he needed attention from visiting healers in order to be able to form sentences again. He also later visited Law of One authors Rueckert and Elkins. Not sufficiently independent
5 Jan Wicherink The book is here. This source does discuss The Law of One fairly extensively (pp 193-198). It also discusses David Wilcock's claim to be Edgar Cayce reincarnated (see item 2). Good coverage, but part of a circular round of Fringe matter self-references.
6 Wynn Free, with David Wilcock (see item 2) Detailed coverage but hardly independent (David Wilcock is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, who himself channelled an extraterrestrial and much is made of the similarities between his material and that of The Law of One. Not independent
7 Jay Kinney The "Ra Material" is mentioned here Might count if you consider Gnosis (magazine) a reliable source.

Now there is nothing in there to convince me that there is any notability outside the bubble of similar fringe material, and if the article does get kept, it deserves perhaps 2 paragraphs neutrally describing its contents, not an exposition of its "philosophy" as if any of it were in any meaningful way, well, true. If we are going give article space to communications from extra-terrestrial beings we have a responsibility to be damn sure that what we say is really well supported in reliable sources. And that will be hard. Mcewan (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS This material is already covered in the Rueckert section of the List of modern channelled texts. In my opinion that's the right place and the coverage is adequate. Mcewan (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your analysis. The two main issues with it are that you are operating according to an incorrect definition of "independent" and you are assuming that just because people from the same genre cite one another this makes their citations invalid. You have also not read over the other cited sources--there are more than just those. I threw those up in a hurry because I thought the article would be deleted. The complete list is more like 17 books.
Re: Tyman -- The Tyman book is available in academic libraries and has the most sophisticated philosophical discussion of it. I've read it and my university has a copy.
Independence -- The definition of independent from
WP:NBOOK
--this means Carla Rueckert, Don Elkins, and Jim McCarty are NOT independent--but all the other authors ARE independent.
Fringe -- New Agers cite one another. Those citations are STILL notable and relevant according to
WP:NBOOK. Your argument here is like saying that existentialists aren't notable because they are only cited by other existentialists, or that a Christian writer isn't notable because he is only cited by other Christians. Critical discussion happens within a community and the existence of the community--the popularity, secondary sources, and discussion--is what makes a book notable. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
One slight problem with the Tyman book is that it is dedicated to LL Research and Don Elkins, authors of The Law of One. Not making me think it is necessarily independent.
Re independence, we just disagree about what constitutes independence. With Spinoza and Liebniz, the difference is that no one needs to assert their notability exclusively through mentions of each other.
re Fringe - again I just disagree that you have demonstrated that such critical discussion is taking place outside a pretty small bubble of like-minded people. Given that the channeling of Ra took place 30 years ago, if the event (never mind the book) was notable in any real sense we should be seeing much more widespread and eclectic coverage. Mcewan (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry I don't know the proper format to add a comment, since I'm not an editor. I just wanted to say that I needed information about the Law of One series for a book I'm writing. I had read the series years before and needed a quick review of the core concepts. I found this article very helpful and true to the content of the books as I remember it. My opinion is that it may be helpful to others as well and I urge you to retain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshepard50 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Mshepard50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a valid reason for keeping. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Critical analysis of references

Is this Series of Books Notable under WP:NBOOK?

As a series of books, this series of books can be evaluated under

WP:NBOOK
:

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

— Wikipedia Notability Guideline 1,
WP:NBOOK

Since the notability requirement is for one or more[5] of the criteria, satisfying section 1 would be sufficient to prove notability for this book. Therefore, I will start by proving that this series satisfies the first listed criterion.

Is This Series of Books Notable According to Criterion One?

The test in question:

[Has this series been] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself?

— Wikipedia Notability Guidelines,
WP:NBOOK

With only a little bit of investigation I found a number of books, magazine articles, blog articles, websites, and forums discussing this series.

"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur.

— Notability Guidelines,
WP:NBOOK

So excluding all the websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and wikis, we are left with a long list of magazines and books.

Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.

— Notability Guidelines,
WP:NBOOK

How many books and magazine sources are there (i.e. non-trivial) that are not written by those actually involved with the particular book (i.e. independent)?

The answer is at least 17. There are seventeen (17) cited sources that count as non-trivial[6] and independent[7] and that discuss this series of books.

Seventeen constitutes "multiple".

Therefore, this list of seventeen sources meets the tests for:

  • Multiple
  • Non-trivial
  • Published
  • Independent

What other standards must be met?

Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

— Wikipedia Notability Guideline 1,
WP:NBOOK

How many of these seventeen (17) sources contain critical commentary that would allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary?

The answer is: at least 7. I haven't yet tabulated all the critical activity surrounding this book, but at the very least there are seven (7) sources critically discussing this series of books. This standard for critical commentary is therefore met.

Therefore, this list of seventeen sources meets the tests for:

  • Multiple
  • Non-trivial
  • Published
  • Independent
  • Some sources providing critical commentary.

Since a series of books must only meet ONE criteria to be notable, and this series of books amply meets the first criteria listed at

WP:NBOOK
, this series of books is notable.

NOTE: Since only some of the sources must contain critical commentary, this does not exclude the non-critical sources from the test of notability. Uncritical sources still attest to notability and only some[8] of the seventeen (17) sources must provide critical commentary.

Incomplete list of the sources that meet the criteria necessary for establishing notability
  • Each of the sources below are independent, non-trivial, and published according to
    WP:NBOOK
    's definition of these words. Some of these sources present critical commentary.
  1. Lewis, James R. The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds.
    ISBN 978-0791423301
    .
  2. Valerian, Valdamar (1994). Matrix IV : The Equivideum (IV). Leading Edge Research.
    ASIN B008OJ2T5I
    .
  3. Greenfield, Allen. SECRET CIPHER of the UFOnauts.
    ISBN 978-1411667594
    .
  4. Mandelker, Scott (2000). From Elsewhere: Being E.T. in America.
    ISBN 978-1559723046
    .
  5. ISBN 0-525-95204-7
    .
  6. ISBN 978-1897244364
    .
  7. Koven, Jean-Claude (2004). Going Deeper. Prism House Press.
    ISBN 978-0972395458
    .
  8. Tyman, Stephen. A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution.
    ISBN 978-0761833567
    .
  9. Wicherink, Jan (2008). Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. Piramidions.
    ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6
    .
  10. ISBN 978-1479364268
    .
  11. Gnosis (1995). The Inner Planes. A Journal of the Western Inner Traditions. Gnosis. Vol. 36. Gnosis.
  12. Beachy, Marcia. This Divine Classroom: Earth School and the Psychology of the Soul.
    ISBN 978-1418482824
    .
  13. Redfield, Dana. The ET-human link.
    ISBN 978-1571742056
    .
  14. Free, Wynn (2004). The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?. Frog Books.
    ISBN 978-1583940839
    .
  15. Schlemmer, Phyllis (1994). The Only Planet of Choice: Essential Briefings from Deep Space. Gateway Books.
    ISBN 1858600235
    .
  16. Bishop, Kitty. The Tao of Mermaids: Unlocking the Universal Code With the Angels and Mermaids.
    ISBN 978-1452500645
    .
  17. Mandelker, Scott. Universal Vision: Soul Evolution and the Cosmic Plan.
    ISBN 978-0970198501
    .

Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: I agree that the article has sources, but the way the article is written, the sources are inert and provide no abject value to the description of the article's subject. In addition to the fringe nature of the sources, what is more important is that the text of this article does not describe a single subject, The Law of One, but rather provides a disjointed collection of thoughts authors who have published similar ideas. Excluding the authors of The Law of One, I can not find a single instance where the article provides a factual statement about "The Law of One" published by a credible source.
At the foundation of this article's problem is the fact that the role of the sources is upside down. Sources are meant to provide facts about an article's subject, not to explain the concepts of a subject. For instance, anyone can write an article about their personal thoughts on religion and then cite a multitude of religious text from which those thoughts originate, but that in no way makes their religious beliefs noteworthy. Likewise, every term paper written by students is not
notable just because it uses sources. If you were to remove all the facts supported by the source text then remove all statements that come from sources that do not actually mention the subject by name, what would be left? Mrathel (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There is nothing to remove. Everything mentioned in the article is of the book: an attempt at summarizing it. The article simply discusses the contents of the book. Yes, the subjects within the book are this broad. This isn't a diatribe but an attempt at a summary which you will see is quite difficult if you've gone through the five (5) books. Yes, the article is in poor shape but it still meets the notability requirements and, yes, the sources discuss the books' content which are indeed factual statements. --Neoconfederate (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this book was written in the 1980s. This wasn't covered online. It couldn't be. But it is clear it was covered widely for its time period. --Neoconfederate (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NBOOK. I'm not clear whether you (a) don't know the definition of secondary source (b) don't realize that these cited works are secondary sources (c) something else. At this point if this article gets deleted without a good explanation I'm going to have to conclude that wikipedia admins simply don't operate according to a written code, but rather operate according to some unwritten code that is not available for me to read. I'm looking forward to the verdict. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Honestly, it's basically a joke that someone can come in here and say "this is just a disjointed collection of thoughts that aren't in the book! Delete-it-all!" Ummmmm.... NO IT'S NOT YOU'RE JUST FACTUALLY WRONG. I'm imagining these people commenting on, say, the
WP:NBOOK notability criteria is easily met. If you want to delete it based on some subjective judgement of quality made by a person who never even read the books... well.... I guess that's the Wild West they call wikipedia. Some guy whose never read it will judge whether the article represents the books or not and vote for delete based on his ignorant split second inclination. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
I am not sure either of you understand my objection. I don't care about the book. What I care about is the quality of the article and whether it meets notability standards. I don't have to go as far as checking the quality of the sources used for this article because none of them appear to actually describe the article's subject. For example, if I were to create an article titled A bunny Mrathel drew on a napkin last night and cite thousands of sources on bunnies, napkins, and lunar cycles...my drawing still would not be notable. I have no doubt that the philosophical subjects cited by these sources appear in the text, but that is not how sourcing works. To use your own example, The Torah is notable, but not every book written about the Torah is notable. I see examples where others have written about the concepts in The Law of One, but this article doesn't show me that credible, published sources have written about the Law of One. Mrathel (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites sources. The duty of the article is to cite the credible, published sources that have written about the book series. The duty of the reader is to follow them up. The books cited by the article are credible, published, and indepedent according to the definitions of these words on
WP:NBOOK. Your claims are nothing more than proof by assertion--you're saying that the secondary sources aren't valid without showing why they aren't valid. If you're not interested in following up the sources you have nothing to contribute to this discussion and shouldn't be voting. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk
) 19:25, 1 February 2013
You are arguing in circles. If the sources don't provide material about the subject of an article, then they are not sources. The entire article is about the philosophy in The Law of One, not about the book itself. Look at the Contents section, which is the largest in the article. Here we have a clear example of improperly used sourcing and non-encyclopedic content. The paragraph beginning "Secondary sources" mimics encyclopedic content, but the sourcing is convoluted and based heavily upon
WP:weasel. The Tyman book seems credible enough, but it itself is not enough to provide notability, and the weasel words need to be replaced with quotations and direct references. I would say the article needs to be rewritten, but I see no indication that notability has been met. Mrathel (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You've already made this argument. There is no need (nor is it appropriate) to try to tell the closing admin how to read this. Whomever does it will read the points everyone has already made (yours included) and come to their own conclusions. InShaneee (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should rewrite that comment because it looks like it's a message from the closing admin, not addressed to the closing admin. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there may be coverage, but it is not in my view significant or reliable - having searched the sort of reliable sources - broadsheets/academic journals etc - where you would expect to find coverage of subjects like this, I find nothing ---- nonsense ferret 01:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refuted! -- Coverage in academic journals is NOT a requirement for notability according to
WP:NBOOK? If academic coverage were necessary, do you think Twilight books would be on wikipedia? How about every Star Trek and Star Wars book ever written? You won't find these books in academia yet they are notable due to their popularity. Your argument is preposterous and not based on any established wikipedia rules--any written rules or guidelines. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
No, you would not expect to find academic coverage for this. It is widely discussed by published sources. That is all that's needed. --Neoconfederate (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there - the majority of the books in this series (3 out of 5) don't seem to meet the threshold for
WP:NBOOK. ---- nonsense ferret 11:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (ammended to reflect that book 1 and book 5 have been found in Library of Congress, but as yet books 2,3, and 4 have not ---- nonsense ferret 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC))[reply
]
Debunked -- The books are held and indexed at the Library of Congress. See here: http://lccn.loc.gov/82012967 . If you want a copy from the Library of Congress you need to request it as the Jefferson or Adams Building Reading Rooms. DID YOU EVEN CHECK THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BEFORE MAKING YOUR CLAIM? Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC) {— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well I accept that books 1 and 5 of the 5 book series seem to be there on looking again - can't find the links to 2,3 and 4 - I wonder if you have these so we can get this all cleared up reasonably? ---- nonsense ferret 18:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is fair judgement considering the age and genre of this material. In addition, the specifics of that policy are under a lot of political pressure--especially its pedantic nuances. The fact is resources are expended to publish a book and the fact so many have spent time and money to cover this work in their works should be enough testament to notability. WP:Fringe shouldn't apply to overall fringe subject areas in the wiki. --Neoconfederate (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree with
WP:NBOOK by virtue of the fact it was never considered significant enough to keep a copy at the Library of Congress - it has failed to meet the most basic of thresholds and all the arguments above about references are thereby rendered irrelevant. It was certainly the practice during the years of publication for any significant books to have been taken by the national Library, so I think saying the guideline doesn't apply because of the age is a poor argument indeed. ---- nonsense ferret 16:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have never cited
WP:NBOOK for any argument. I just disagree with the criteria in that policy when it applies to subjects like this. A government library is going to be biased in what material it condones in its collection. I believe it shouldn't apply for subject areas that are not otherwise covered in the mainstream although this overall subject area is notable and discussed enough for Wikipedia. The same criteria for accepting "Alternative thought" articles on Wikipedia should be applicable for this article as well for it is 1) widely discussed and 2) notable for this genre. For instance, the whole 2012 phenomena was influenced by this work.--Neoconfederate (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
When you voted you very clearly cited Bilbobagginsesprecious argument as a justification for your strong keep. The case for notability which you cited relies heavily on
WP:NBOOK cannot be met in relation to the books currently under consideration. ---- nonsense ferret 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you intend to reference that claim? What sources are unreliable and why? --Neoconfederate (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make an argument based on
WP:NBOOK? Sufficient secondary sources exist that DO meet the CLEAR, WRITTEN criteria for a reliable source. You are doing nothing more than proof by assertion. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC) {— Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Opposition to this article is ideological -- The opposition to this article is ideological rather than based on any wikipedia guideline. For comparison, let's examine some books that are NOT up for deletion:

WP:NPOV and are opposed to the article based on nothing more than its genre--spiritualism, religious beliefs, New Age beliefs. The article must be judged on wikipedia's written rules, not your personal opinion about what is "nonsense" or "doesn't belong on wikipedia." Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

I should point out to you that the argument about less notable articles existing is one that is frequently attempted, and is accepted by the guidelines to be a fallacy and has its own link
WP:OTHERSTUFF - and to explain what I mean, this article should stand or fall on its own merits and notability, referring to other articles which exist (and just haven't had anyone get round to deleting them yet) really doesn't add very much to the case for this one ---- nonsense ferret 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)---- nonsense ferret 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)---- nonsense ferret 19:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
My argument is that the opposition to this article is ideological, I'm using the fact that non-New Age articles aren't viciously opposed to back up this argument. This argument is in addition to my argument that this book series is notable based on
WP:N. I can make both arguments. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
I don't see what is vicious about having the opinion that a book or series of books isn't encyclopedic - impuning the motives of people who disagree with you and calling them names like 'idealogue' doesn't seem to me very
civil.---- nonsense ferret 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want to claim that I've violated
WP:NPOV view but rather ideological opposition. You can engage this argument or not--so far you have not. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
  • Strong Keep: Another rally for deletion. As far as I remember, when an article is up for deletion, all the contributors would be informed about the case through user talk pages; I wasn't informed about. I just felt a disturbance in the force this morning, and here I am.
There isn't any notability issue. "No media coverage, no critical analysis by someone outside the belief system" is a kind of proof of nominator's arguments and understandings about wikipedia policies/guidelines being seriously flawed. For whom interested, here's the link to the declined arbitration case back in 2009, about attitudes towards such articles: [1]
talk) 11:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
All I'm seeing in that link is that that case was declined due to a lack of other avenues of dispute resolution having been tried. I'm not seeing the arbitrators making any statements about the issues that were presented, nor do I see why any should be inferred. InShaneee (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For whom interested: [3], [4], [5], [6].
talk) 21:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Any reason you couldn't have appended your extra comment to the end of the comment you've already made? ---- nonsense ferret 21:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep This seems as equally notable as A Course in Miracles. If it has multiple reliable sources as Lucky Louie claims, I don't see a problem. Goldfringer (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that article is as notable as this one, then maybe we should be deleting both articles? That isn't a sensible argument for keeping anything - see
WP:OTHERSTUFF ---- nonsense ferret 23:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
And Lucky Louie concluded the article should be deleted, so based on his argument you want to keep it? ---- nonsense ferret 23:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::His conclusion appears to be ideologically based as suggested and well demonstrated by Bilbo, Louie notes multiple reliable sources and I try to go with guidelines and remain neutral on ideology matters. Goldfringer (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled as to how anybody could get "the article has multiple reliable sources" from what I wrote. As to it being "ideologically based", I am also puzzled as to what ideaology I supposedly subscribe to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Going Deeper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Souls was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cayce was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. WP:NBOOK
  6. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
  7. ^ Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.|Notability Guidelines
  8. WP:NBOOK
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One&oldid=1140115330"