Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of unconditional love


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of unconditional love
Vanity article about non-notable web page created by the author of the Wiki article. Banno 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * keep bottom line, it IS a thing/concept..it DOES exist...case closed, end of story
 * The above entry is from, an AOL IP. I request that it be discounted. Not to mention that the reason given would mean that anything could be included in the Wiki. Banno 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete that is the message the universe cries out to me (as per WP:WEB and because it's OR) --Charlesknight 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is real mystic and all, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, strong doubts that the cited published sources actually talk about this (doubts that could be addressed by quotes from them that use this term). Gazpacho 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, concerning the issues presented by Banno as grounds for deletion in the article discussion page:

1. The Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox; the pages is self-promotion and advocacy.

Rebuttal: No invitation nor mention is made concerning the author of the article to visit any website or support any idea. Thus, it is not SELF-promotion. Furthermore, no invitation is made by the author to visit, support, and/or agree to the OneLuv Philosophy or to visit http://www.one-luv.com. The author and the web-page are listed as references and cited (as required by WikiPedia) in the same manner as all other references.


 * The argument presented above is irrelevant. The sole purpose of this article is to attempt to draw attention to an otherwise non-notable website. Note that a reverse search on Google for http://www.one-luv.com/ or its sub-pages returned no entries. The page is self-promotion, regardless of how the links to oneluv are presented. Banno


 * Let's remember that the name of the article is "philosophy of unconditional love"... NOT oneluv philosophy. Oneluv philosophy is a source for the philosophy of unconditional love. All the citations in the article are required by WikiPedia to properly reference a source.Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

From Verifiability: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Banno 09:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

2. The article meets the criteria for vanity. Specifically, it contains material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

Rebuttal: Again, no mention is made of the author of the article within the article, its references, or subsets. Moreover, no mention is made of OneLuv Philosophy or its author except in the form of properly referenced material as required by WikiPedia. Furthermore, the author of OneLuv Philosophy (accused of attempting to "promote is his personal notoriety") uses a pseudonym specifically to avoid notoriety.


 * There are a half-dozen or so references to in the article. Count 'em. Banno


 * All references included in the article are citations required by WikiPedia to give proper credit to a source. No one, as of yet, has stated those citations were put in place improperly. If so, make your argument. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * None of those references meets the criteria set out at Reliable sources, as a suitable source for the material presented in the article. Banno 09:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

3. The article is not notable. There are no independent reliable sources cited to show that this is a topic worthy of inclusion.

Rebuttal: Essentially, “we experience this primary force, this primary movement of existence, this primary act of creation, as the emotion we call love…When we use the term love here, we’re speaking of unconditional love (Kaufman, 2002).” This is a quote from Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev the first one to prepose a rudimentary philosophy of unconditonal love. The reference for this quote is: Kaufman, Steven (2002). "Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence into Experience". Milwaukee, WI: Destiny Toad Press. ppg 185,311... an independent and reliable source.

Furthermore, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev is listed on WikiPedia as an accepted article. In that article, the author states: "His (Dr. Kozyrev's) nearly unified theory and aspects thereof, such as the durational/physical aspects of time itself and cause-effect systems, have never been experimentally disproven to this day. The awesome implications of his work..."

Within Wikipedia, itself, Dr. Kozyrev is listed and accepted as scientist whose works have "awesome implications" and whose identifications "have never been experimentally disproven". Such as source is both reliable and independent... and he was the first to assert a philosophy of unconditonal love.


 * Again, this misses the point. The article lists no third parties that even discuss the oneluv site or philosophy. An incidental use of the same term by Kaufman simply does not count. Banno


 * He uses the term "unconditional love", not "the philosophy of unconditional love." And he is by no means the first to describe such a concept, which has been part of Christian philosophy for centuries. What you would have to show (as I said on the article talk page) is that this article describes a philosophical school, the ideas and adherents of which have been recognized by someone other than yourself as a school. Gazpacho 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the name of the article is "philosophy of unconditional love" NOT OneLuv Philosophy... a highly reputable scientist stating that existence exists as unconditional love is both philosophical and significant... i.e. metaphysics: the origin and nature of existence.

Furthermore, the fact that the concept has been a part of Christian philosophy for centuries is more proof toward the fact that it is a viable, acceptable school of thought. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will repeat the criticism: there are no independent reliable sources cited to show that this is a topic worthy of inclusion. Especially damming in this regard is the complete absence of links to the key resource, the one love web site. Banno 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Similarly, the sources are unreliable and unverifiable.

Rebuttal: Again, reliable and verifiable sources have been referenced in the article:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_unconditional_love"
 * Jaye, Michael (2006, 09 26). The Philosophy of Unconditional Love. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from One-Luv Philosophy Web site: http://www.one-luv.com
 * The Neo-Tech/Zonpower Home Page
 * Wilcock, David, “The Divine Cosmos”, Divine Cosmos, n.d. [Book on-line, temp]; available from http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=20&Itemid=36; Internet; accessed 15 august 2006.
 * Wolf, Fred A. (1988). "Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds New York, NY: Touchstone. ppg 69-70.
 * Kaufman, Steven (2002). "Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence into Experience". Milwaukee, WI: Destiny Toad Press. ppg 185,311.
 * Radin, Dean, "Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality". New York, NY: Pocket Books. pg 231.
 * Talbot, Michael, "The Holographic Universe". New York, NY: HarperCollins, ppg 1, 47, 59.
 * Jaynes, Julian, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind". New York, NY: First Mariner. pg 55.

Furthermore, much of the article contains links to other articles within WikiPedia, itself.


 * Most of these links and references are incidental, in that they do not mention the specific one love philosophy. The remainder are written by the author of the article. None of these meet the criteria set out at WP:WEB Banno


 * Again, we're talking about the philosophy of unconditional love NOT OneLuv Philosophy. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus, the grounds for deletion of this article are ungrounded and unsubstantiated.

It appears the editors of Wikipedia are dishonestly allowing their own personal beliefs to influence the content of Wikipedia as evidenced by the sarcastic remarks of one voter:

"Delete that is the message the universe cries out to me (as per WP:WEB and because it's OR) --Charlesknight 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)"...

And, further evidenced by the condescending remarks of another editor:

"...But I will continue to object to linking this page from the main Philosophy article, which is about the academic discipline and not new age stuff such as this. Banno 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)"

Because such editors do not understand and/or agree with the assertions properly expressed in the article, they seem to be attempting to dismiss it as "unacceptable for Wikipedia". Yet, as shown above, the grounds for which they've made such claims are baseless. The article has and does operate within the guidelines expressed by those editors, themselves.


 * Anyone who has passed philosophy 101 would be able to drive a bus through the holes in the metaphysics presented in this article. Take it to any of the serious philosophy forums and see what they say. Banno 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet, continued attempts to delete the article have been made. Thus, it is quite clear that because the article conflicts with the editors' personal beliefs, they are attempting to dishonestly remove it and its value from Wikipedia to satisfy their own personal cravings for "rigteousness" and pseudo self-esteems.


 * Actually, as an admin I might have deleted it as patent nonsense, and I doubt anyone would have noticed. Instead I will let it go through the due process; and ignore the personal attack implicit in your comment. Banno 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

However, such dishonest editors are not without redemption. Upon seeing and understanding the full scope of facts as presented here, each editor has the ability to undo his/her dishonesties and choose an honest path. Upon seeing the full scope of facts, each editor has the inherent right to change his/her vote to reflect a Neutral Point of View... NOT one's own skewed personal beliefs or views.

Jpmorris2006 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First off - calling other editors liars is not really the best way to try and get people to change their mind. Secondly while some of the sources quoted in that article are good (leaving aside the crank websites), the synthesis of them presented within that article is OR by a non-notable figure on a non-notable website. Can you point towards an article or a book that reviews or discusses the theory (NOT the sources but the emerging theory) as presented on that webpage? --Charlesknight 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's see... on the philosophy page, you as editors do your best to present the concept of "philosophy" to people who want to know more. While, you're not perfect... you do your best. You're not notable, nor do you own any notable sites on philosophy (if you do, by chance, it means nothing to wikipedia... that's not the point of it)

I do my best to try to present the philosophy of unconditional love to people who want to learn more. I'm no perfect, but I do my best. I'm NOT notable nor do I own a notable website about it. But, I don't have to be... I'm an editor NOT a source.Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't actually see anything approaching an answer to my question in there. Let's try again - do you have a non-notable source which discusses the theory as presented on that webpage? Because you answer just seems to say "yes it's entirely non-notable" --Charlesknight 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Second point - could you clarify something for me? your comment is the only one on the webpage - you talk about how wonderful the system is and how you have been putting it into practice for two months, however according to WHOIS, the site only came into existance ten days ago (the hit count says it's had 114 visits - 5 are mine so it fails WP:WEB as well). Can you clear up my confusion? --Charlesknight 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I said this before... he had an old website called http://www.mjaye.com that it was on before this new one. Check out WHOIS on that one... it's been up since October 2005. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I've read over the edits that the author of OneLuv Philosophy made to the page. They don't try to pump HIS philosophy. They simple clarify the philosophy of unconditional love... two different things! Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP Exactly which part of energy do you deleters not understand?   ~Kiwini
 * User's first edit. Gazpacho 07:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The references on the oneluv website and in the article do not adequately support either the ideas in the article or the claim that the 'philosophy of unconditional love' is an established theory. If this is an established theory, then one would expect that there would be places where these ideas are considered critically. In an (admittedly cursory) search I failed to find any. Anarchia 09:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Anarchia points out, above, that the references do not seem to establish that this thing is a legitimate theory. Well, just let me clarify that even if it were a legitimate theory, it is still not acceptable as it stands, because "the philoeophy of..." means that it needs to be an established academic discipline!! It is not!! Any claims to the contrary are preposterously misleading and false!! You cannot simply write an article and say "the philosophy of doodoo" is that branch of philosophy which studies the multifarious aspects of human waste, the form, the color, the criteria of individuation (where does the crap end and where does it begin). Well, you CAN, (0: but it does NOT belong on a serious encyclopedia. --Francesco Franco 09:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can find no mention of this theory within the academic literature - however if someone has a reference they would like me to check I'm quite happy to take a look. --Charlesknight 10:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, all in all, here's the situation. There are basically two relevent references here. One is to the webpage of someone named Jaye. It is not a book, an article in a serious journal, a magazine....It is just a webpage with his original research on it. Umm....my 14-year-old niece is working on a similar project. The other is to another webpage which does not really discuss "philosophy of unconditional love", but some related theories about some mysterious energy and the ether that permeates the universe. If this article stays, then I will create a blog this afternoon and post some original ideas about counterfactual hate and the origins of time and will request an article on Wikipedia. --Francesco Franco 10:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. If this article were permitted to stay on the Wiki, we might as well drop any pretence of developing a serious encyclopedia. Looking forward to reading your Niece's work... Banno 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting how "expert" editors who battle to be taken seriously use childish attacks and non sequiturs to make their points:

"Umm....my 14-year-old niece is working on a simialr project... "the philosophy of doodoo" is that branch of philophy which studies the multaifarious aspects of human waste, the form, the color, the criteroa of individuation (where does the crap and where does it begin)..."

Such attacks (riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors) make no point and serve no purpose... and only point out the childish nature of such editors. Furthermore, with such editors as the "experts" of Wikipedia, "we might as well drop any pretence of developing a serious encyclopedia".

Aristotle identified that the most important "cause" of any existent is its final cause -- its purpose. What is the final cause of such editors? What purpose do they serve? Do they exist to help and coach new editors to create valuable articles... or, do they exist to attack and drain value from new editors in order to pump their egos and boost their pseudo self-esteems?

Let the facts of the case reveal themselves...

Jpmorris2006 13:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let the facts on my userpage reveal themselves to your superior wisdom. To paraphrase Nietzsche: "Here are my contributions, where are yours?" Is this it? --Francesco Franco 13:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if you look at that same page and/or discuss the issue with people who are familar with me on this project, you would find that I reject (indeed, I'm beginning to vehemently resent) the appelation of "expert". I am NOT. But I am a relatively experienced Wikipedian and my contributions shall speak for themselves. Therefore, I can only strongly advise you to learn the basic rules: WP:OR, WP:Reliable, WP:Verify, WP:WEB, etc.. Hint: you've gotten off to a bad start. Try working on Alexius Meinong or something like that. --Francesco Franco 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable psychoceramica. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm offended that Jpmorris2006 didn't get offended at my snarkiness. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there is evidence of notability (e.g. inclusion in an academic curriculum or recommended reading list at an accredited college or university; book review in a major publication); citation by someone whose work meets those criteria. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep---As the author states, this is in the beginning stages of development...the beginning of the study of "Philosophy of Unconditional Love." Every conclusion has a beginning idea, that leads to a hypothosis, which is in turned studied and either proven true or not true. As stated previously on this page, some studies have been noted back to early Christian philosopy and more recently by the authors cited by Jaye. In all of the comments on this page about why to delete this there are not any legitimate reasons. It seems as if those opposed to this article do not understand the definition of philosophy and what it means to think outside the box to research an unfamiliar area. I have read all of the information on this website and on the author's website and I feel that is well researched. This is not a self-promoting article and the author is not try to gain anything personal on this website. This article needs to remain on the website and should not be discriminated against because it is a touchy subject. Looking forward to more from this author...JKalea


 * As the author states, this is in the beginning stages of development ah so you agree that it fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball- many thanks to that new user for making a case for deleting. --Charlesknight 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * , who signed themselves above as JKalea, is indeed a new user; this, like the other entries voting to keep the article, is another first post. So I guess that we can forgive JKalea for not understanding that the Wiki is not a place to publish original research. It does not mater one jot if the philosophy of unconditional love is indeed the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything. It cannot be placed on the Wiki until it meets the basic requirements of verifiability, reliability and notability. Again, the argument should be discounted. Banno 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:10, 4 October 2006 (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.