User:Logos/Talk:Ra (channeled entity)/Archive 1

Objection
I object the deletion. Because in the first place, this article is not about a book completely, it is about a group of entities. I believe that if the concept of Ra, an ancient egyptian sun god, can be an article on wikipedia, so can this one. Our civilization don't have any solid evidence that egyptians were truly worshipping Ra, we just have "records-books" from those old days. When we refer to those records-books, Ra builds itself as an ancient egytptian sun god automatically. Similarly, in order to back up the concept here, the books need to be mentioned. You can take it as I'm trying to build Ra group as a social memory complex concept with the material available at hand.Lyckey (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your first objection makes no sense. A book itself cannot derive notability from the characteristics of any of its protagonists. Otherwise every comic discussing a superhero would be notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a very good learning curve with somethings, eg templates, but you don't seem to understand a lot of our policies and guidelines. In what way is this WP:NOTABLE? Please read those guidelines and explain how you justify this. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe below part of WP:NOTABLE should apply here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTABLE#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines --Logos5557 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article will be deleted if you don't remove the template. So why not remove it and I'll take it to AfD and you can argue notability there. I see no likelihood this will become notable and you certainly can't use Wikipedia as a vehicle to make it notable. Or leave the template on it and I or someone else will delete it on the 4th. dougweller (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Logos5557 (alias Lyckey), the following is from the link you gave: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." I have already made an active effort. If the article goes to AfD, other editors there will (normally) also make an active effort. I followed the advice further down of asking the article creator for sources that demonstrate notability, albeit by prodding. Now I have also followed the other two bits of advice: tagging for notability, and tagging for expert help. I think if anyone can find sources establishing the notability of this particular piece of nonsense, it's an expert on UFO religions or pseudoscience. There seems to be no WikiProject directly relevant to UFO religions, but there is one for pseudoscience.

I suggest that you also do something about the presentation of the material, which is currently not from a mainstream, neutral point of view. Otherwise you are going to lose a lot of sympathy from contributors to the deletion discussion. As explained above, the link you gave does not protect this article from being deleted after a deletion discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * These materials were published in 80s. Since then either the books or the editors most probably might have been noted or interviewed with in some newspapers/magazines or in other type of media. World wide web has not a long history, in order to be able to cover all these past records. Perhaps, the definition of notability should be revised for these particular pieces of old publications. Nonetheless, I've searched through books.google and found plenty of references to these material. Hope these reliable sources satisfy you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XASgbACJaeEC&pg=PA190&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&hl=tr#PPA190,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=kQVEPhK_-wIC&pg=PA681&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=W21QlmD9yCEC&pg=RA1-PA21&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr#PRA1-PT1,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=eq3ZbvrvQVUC&pg=PA79&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=u0WZ_5e-VLMC&pg=RA1-PA78&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=KCEtC3xnzuAC&pg=PA293&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=nt6W60CxsocC&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=HQcL0MJ4ZWIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr#PPA39,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=w7R7xyB0T80C&pg=PA52&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr#PPA52,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=NoF_AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=A3ELAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=A9vAea4MV8cC&pg=PA77&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr#PPA81,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=zmhYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=UyP_U_wybocC&pg=PA113&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=jv99AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=jv99AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr

--Logos5557 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Short answer: No. Long answer: I see no chance that the "Ra" books satisfy one of criteria 2-5 from Notability (books). So only number 1 remains:
 * The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. 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.
 * I have seen most of your sources before, of course (since I also searched Google books). Most are written for a fringe audience: UFO believers, conspiracy theorists, new age people. "The Gods have landed" is a mainstream book, but its coverage of the books is definitely not non-trivial – they are merely mentioned in a biography. "Strange Weather" by Andrew Ross probably counts as a mainstream source (not sure), and it gives a plot summary on p. 39f. There are also a few books that I can't check.
 * The problem remains: There is no evidence that the book is notable, and there is currently no non-fringe information about it that would allow us to give more than a plot summary.
 * Under these circumstances it is hard to fix the worst current problem with the article: That it treats the plot of a fictional book as non-fiction. This kind of situation is exactly why we have the notability criteria. If you can't find better sources that actually allow us to write something reasonable about the book, it will have to go to AfD. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've modified the article as it would resemble the "format" of Pleiadeans and its current state is no more than a plot summary. It does not include loads of sentences about the information that is said to have been channeled from Ra. It would not be a good idea to merge it with Don Elkins either. I have to state once again: the article is not about the book, it is about a main character of a series of books. Although you seem that you can't check all the books that cover the law of one books, enough number of books, some being mainstream, fits into the definition of WP:NOTABLE. You don't seem to be neutral in this particular case --Logos5557 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I getting this right? Because it's not clear that this series of books is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, you think a way out is to just write about a character in the book? I think establishing the notability of that character will be even harder. Notability doesn't come from sensational claims, it comes from non-trivial coverage in reliable mainstream sources, to an extent that allows us to write a reasonable short article. You have not presented such sources, and I doubt that they exist. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet you're not getting any part of it right. Returning back to your point of notability of the book: "Ra" books do not satisfy one of criteria 2-5 from Notability (books) but this does not mean that they aren't notable since the criteria is "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria". That means 1st criteria is enough. None of the books on wikipedia satisfy all of these 5. The library search for the first volume of the book gives: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8669397&tab=holdings?loc=United+States http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/27743988&tab=holdings?loc=United+States

The author of below book is Dean of the Faculty at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in Menlo Park, California. His academic background is in communications and he views channeling as a form of communication. http://books.google.com/books?id=NoF_AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://www.amazon.com/Tongues-Men-Angels-Channeling-Institute/dp/0030471648/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228149766&sr=1-1 http://www.intuition.org/txt/hastings.htm

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=w7R7xyB0T80C&q=rueckert http://www.jonklimo.com/about.htm

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=HQcL0MJ4ZWIC&q=rueckert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ross

http://books.google.com/books?id=nt6W60CxsocC&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Picknett

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=KCEtC3xnzuAC&q=rueckert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Lewis

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=W21QlmD9yCEC&q=rueckert http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=Ws2Oemi1gKIC&q=rueckert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_H._Greenfield

http://books.google.com/books?id=zmhYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

http://books.google.com/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://www.siu.edu/~philos/faculty.htm#tyman

http://books.google.com/books?id=xJnH6D4kAxgC&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leviton

Please note that some of the authors are academic. May be we can put it in mathematical form; Ra, as a character, is mentioned in law of one books and law of one books and the character are mentioned in other reliable sources. So notability criteria is satisfied here.--Logos5557 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting surreal, and you have already used up most of my capacity to assume good faith and high intelligence. I never suggested that a book needs to satisfy more than one of the criteria, and I made it very clear that we need to check number 1. You seem to agree, while thinking that I said something else. Whether the books exist in public libraries has nothing to do with notability. (By the way, the categorisation by the library, as "Occultism" and "Spirit writing", makes it very clear that this is about a fringe topic.)
 * Please do not just throw links at me in large quantities, especially not links to books that I have mentioned and discarded before, such as "Strange Weather", or to conspiracy theorist books. In connection with the misunderstanding I just mentioned it makes the impression that you are not listening, just talking.
 * With Arthur Hastings' "With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channeling" we have finally reached the area of fringe in the precise sense of the word (on the fringes of science), rather than fringe as a synonym for "popular crackpot theory". In my opinion that's a borderline case of "mainstream" treatment because fringe science is a borderline case of science. Something more mainstream would be better. Unfortunately I have no access to the book. As a consequence, I cannot check that there is non-trivial coverage there. This will have to be checked by someone; if this is to be our only independent source about the topic then the article must be built mostly on what it says. The "non-trivial coverage" condition is to make sure that that's actually possible. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my misunderstanding about your claims. I'm not underestimating your talents. However, it's your choice to allocate your resources to discuss the matter here. I believe you have been misinterpreting guidelines of wikipedia for this particular subject. If the topic has enough notability, it can be an article on wikipedia although it is fringe. Then it comes to the point, whether there is undue weight or not. The place of discussion for that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Therefore, let's only focus on notability here.
 * I'm sorry but you seem (to me) to confuse notability and acceptance or truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance.
 * Majority of secondary sources (which are reliable) are written for a "fringe" audience, ufo believers, new age people, but this can not have any detrimental effect on the topic's notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V
 * In case above statements hold true, I don't think your discard of books I have been mentioning can result in an unquestionable judgement that this topic is not notable.
 * I have no access to Arthur Hastings' book either. However, the conversation in this link can give some clues as to whether Hastings' coverage of the topic is in a non-trivial manner or not http://www.intuition.org/txt/hastings.htm . The conversation in this link is only on channeling and is not trivial.
 * Klimo is an academic also. http://www.jonklimo.com/about.htm . I believe his below book, which covers law of one books in non-trivial fashion, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=w7R7xyB0T80C&q=rueckert should be regarded as mainstream too.
 * As you stated in your previous reply, "Strange Weather" by Andrew Ross counts as mainstream, and there is slightly more than a plot summary about, on pages 39 and 40. http://books.google.com/books?id=HQcL0MJ4ZWIC&pg=PA252&vq=rueckert&hl=en&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1#PPA40,M1
 * Another book by another academic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek, although not mainstream is http://books.google.com/books?id=zmhYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=en&pgis=1
 * Another book by another academic http://www.siu.edu/~philos/faculty.htm#tyman, is http://books.google.com/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=en
 * I won't throw other books this time, as those are for generally "fringe audience" as you stated. To conclude, I think the notability of the topic looks adequate to have a brief article on wikipedia.--Logos5557 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not improved
About 10 days later, the article is still in the same sorry state. There is a plot summary which is in-universe except for the use of indirect speech. (In the section "Highlights" not even this minor device is used.) If nobody is able/prepared to dig up references that discuss these books from a mainstream point of view, and to turn them into an article (which may also summarise part of the plot, of course), then this article needs to be deleted or merged into the article about the author. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think the only choices are merge or an AfD. And no publicity for L/L or whatever it is. If there are no objections, I'l turn this into a redirect tomorrow and move some of the content to Don Elkins. If there are objections, I will take it to AfD. dougweller (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not agreed. The article is not a proper candidate for neither merge nor deletion/AfD or whatever it is. I will seek for other ways of resolving this dispute listed here; DRLogos5557 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here provides better ground for this particular case, especially the comments made by the user Jack A Roe. I would like to refer to the arbitration request for paranormal case here once again;, .Logos5557 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article be merged or deleted
Does the material in the article meet wikipedia guidelines or not?


 * merged is better solution than delete. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is a massive violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It states claims of paranormal as if they were outright true. It should either be completely deleted, but if there's going to be any merge here, make sure the info has reliable sources and doesn't advance a particular agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its already been through AfD and the decision was to keep. A Criticism section and the removal of the in-universe perspective could do a lot of good though. NoVomit (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Thanks for requesting a third opinion. Any editor who believes an article should be considered for deletion may do so at any time and for any reason at WP:Articles for deletion. WP:3O and WP:RfC are not intended for this purpose. Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)