Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ra (channeled entity)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have nominated this article for deletion. This topic isn't notable, as it hasn't received any attention in reliable, serious, secondary sources. WP:FRINGE provides guidance here, and I'd suggest people familiarize themselves with it in this debate. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Logos5557 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Logos5557 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria that I could see. Although the article appears well referenced, this is not in fact the case. Most references fail WP:RS, and the one that could be considered a reliable, 3rd party, source, is only trivial coverage at best. All other sources are fringe, like the topic itself. The main editor also seems to have ownership issues. Verbal chat  09:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [Speedy] Delete: non-notable article based upon WP:FRINGE sources. No evidence of mainstream media or serious academic coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the creator has userfied & blanked the page, it now qualifies for a G7 speedy delete. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. There don't seem to be any mainstream coverage, and you cannot make an article within Wikipedia policy using only the statements of advocates of the fringe theory. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 197 FCs served 10:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article satisfies notability with the references provided, which meet WP:RS. WP:FRINGE does not apply here, since the definition of fringe in WP:FRINGE is: "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". The particular field of study is paranormal, ufology, new age religions etc., so how a well educated wikipedia user can claim the departure of the topic from mainstream view? Nevertheless, there are evidences of serious academic coverage (as if this is the criteria in wikipedia, you should educate yourself more on wikipedia policies and rules) in the field of philosophy by Stephen Tyman, and in the field of Transpersonal Psychology by Arthur Hastings. What relevance, of me having ownership issues, is there with this AfD? Discussing is not throwing unsupported claims and fallacious arguments into talk pages with incivil style. Those "discussions" in talk pages and this AfD are just gaming the system to me WP:GAME, and definitely requires the intervention of arbitration committee. Logos5557 (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the article talks about. It talks about, or pretends to talk about: mathematics (infinity), physics (universe, vibration, galaxy, star, compass, true north, Nikola Tesla, ball lightning), philosophy (logos, free will, incorporeal), exotic culture (Moai, pyramids), occultism (Lesser ritual of the pentagram), biology (evolution). It's putting all these things together as if they were connected, in a big merry-go-round. — The fields you are listing are not recognised fields of legitimate study. I would have accepted parapsychology as one although it's borderline, but it seems there are no mainstream parapsychology sources, either. Hans Adler 11:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Philosophy is not a recognised field of legitimate study, huh? How about Epistemology and Logic, two branches of philosophy? Now you are gaming the science in addition to wikipedia.. Logos5557 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. Everything after the dash was in response to "particular field of study is paranormal, ufology, new age religions etc." Hans Adler 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, it seems I misunderstood your statement. On the other hand, "particular field of study" is not exactly the same as "particular academic discipline" or "particular field of science". Logos5557 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me correct your misunderstanding; all of the subjects that you think the article talks about, are presented in a way that, the resultant statements would become as facts. "channeled text claims that.." template does completely conform to manual of style. All the "strange" definitions are presented between quotation marks. You should know what that means. The article does not claim any connection between those subjects/concepts you mentioned above. If you understand that way, you really have a good imagination. Logos5557 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the framing is not sufficient for such a large amount of bullshit. There is simply no excuse for filling so much of it into Wikipedia without using it for critical analysis. Which we can't provide since only New Age freaks write about this stuff in the first place and we are not allowed to engage in original research. Hans Adler 10:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating a field called "paranormal, ufology, new age religions, &c." is essentially saying that Fringe theories comprise a field of their own, this is a highly disingenuous claim. If you wish to contact the arbitration committee, I suppose you should. Going to ArbCom is not taken lightly. Irbisgreif (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to read this arbcom ruling well, very well if possible. The links will take you to arbcom's answers to your comment:  and . Logos5557 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not free to fill a large article with bullshit, just because it starts with Arbcom's minimal requirements for framing. If you read the "Adequate framing" ruling that way you are very much mistaken. Their specific point was that the article needn't necessarily start with something like "Ra is the name given by a group of New Age freaks to something they dreamed up over a lengthy series of trance sessions." And the "Popular culture" ruling contains the key words "that are of notable popular interest". In other words, if and when this Ra nonsense is discussed in popular newspapers, or on TV, or some other popular mainstream reception becomes apparent, then we can have an article about it. Hans Adler 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sourcing is not reliable, and I have concerns over WP:COATRACK. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is reliable. Can you point a sentence/phrase from the article, that you think is an example of WP:COATRACK? Logos5557 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with Verbal here... it seems well sourced at first glance, but when you look deeper most of the "independent", "scholarly" sources are self-published and unreliable. No indication that anyone except adherents of the theory have ever taken note of the subject. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me indicate once again: Stephen Tyman and Arthur Hastings. Logos5557 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Verbal and Blueboar. Non notable.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of “notability”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Besides all of the other problems, there is a severe POV problem (just in the first lines "Ra is the name of an extraterrestrial group of supernatural entities" without proof of such). The individuals "contacted" are non-notable along with the book series being non-notable. Publishers are not highly respected academic sources. This falls on all fronts. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check this arbcom ruling both for your claim of severe POV and your reasoning of "highly respected academic sources". Logos5557 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV issues on an article about what ammounts to a minor new age writer's imaginary friend. This is not notable, can we please remove it?Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just imagine if toddlers could write books and edit Wikipedia: "Smoke is an invisible dragon,[dubious - discuss] who will only communicate with Tracey Simmons, aged 3, and often acts to cause Simmons to get into trouble with her parents.[citation needed] Adults generally[who?] refuse to believe that Smoke exists, citing the non-existence of invisible dragons,[citation needed] although Tracey's friends at nursery say they have heard Smoke. Scientists as yet are unable to explain the phenomenon. See also: Invisible Pink Unicorn; Puff the Magic Dragon" Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I strongly suspect that the main editor, User:Logos5557, is connected with the L/L Research organisation that published this book, but as far as I know they've failed to declare this interest. The most obvious clue is that they are using the same Don Quixote image on their user page as is the logo of the organisation. I cannot find a single mainstream reliable source that discusses the "Ra entities"; the only sources that do are paranormal websites and books, mostly self-published. This article is basically being used as a platform to present the ideas of this book and foundation, rather than serving as a balanced presentation of a topic based on independent secondary sources, as they don't exist. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be in the US? That's not consistent with the author's apparent time zone. I also have the impression that he is not a native speaker of English. Hans Adler 10:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And now conspiracy theories are rising :). Yes, I admit, I am a well paid employer of L/L Research. The very same Don Quixote image proves everything. Do not let Hans Adler confuse your clever mind, he is just missing the clues. What are the proxies for? I might have been using a proxy server. Such a determined & well-paid guardian of L/L research can easily play as if he is not a native speaker/writer of english. Isn't there a policy against these kind of things, I mean, conspiracy theories in AfDs? Logos5557 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * *rolls eyes* There is no conspiracy theory. "Connected with" does not mean "employed by". I never suggested that you are an employee of L/L Research, but the use of the exact same image is certainly indicative of a conflict of interest; I'm calling a spade a spade. I hadn't looked at time zones or analysed language patterns, as I have no interest in identifying or outing Logos5557. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * *picks nose* I believe I have at least this amount of freedom to use that amount of sarcasm in this baseless and nonsense AfD. As far as I know, my interests do not conflict with the ones of L/L Research in this issue. Thanks for clarifying anyway.. Logos5557 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The nonsense is not the AfD... To explain what I mean by "conflict of interest", as you obviously don't understand: your interest should be in improving Wikipedia, but that conflicts with your interest in advertising a non-notable fringe paranormal theory. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess nobody except yourself was able to understand that, in the way you relayed. Logos5557 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * merge into Don Elkins. I am sorry, how is "delete" arguable as long as the justification of the Don Elkins article isn't under dispute? "Ra" is clearly within the scope of the Don Elkins article. This is a classic case of an AfD that wouldn't be necessary in the first place. It is a very obvious case of merging, and any editor can do this without going through AfD. After the merger, if people think that the Don Elkins itself fails WP:BIO, there can still be a valid AfD discussion on that. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to merge because without any non-fringe sources discussing the books, the most we can do is mention them in Don Elkins. The author article currently says: "[...] starting in 1974, Rueckert's channelling (she did not do any channelling with the former group) of Ra, which along with Rueckert and her husband Jim McCarty, he edited into The Law of One, originally known as The Ra Material, in five volumes." What else do you want to say? I am sure you can say it without using the article under discussion. I can see no valid reason to preserve the history of this article, and a redirect from a title with a clumsy disambiguator to the Elkins article seems hardly useful.
 * That said, the main object is of course getting rid of all this unsalvageable disinformation. I don't really care whether we do this via deletion or a redirect that is protected against random recreation because it was the outcome of an AfD. Hans Adler 10:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is nothing to merge. I have no issue with a redirect being created after the delete. Verbal chat  10:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I initially proposed a merge with Don Elkins but, as has been pointed out, this may ammount to a delete anyway as there is very little in the article that should be included in Wikipedia in the first place. "Elkins claimed to have contact with an extradimensional entity that he called 'Ra'" and that's about it.Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * no, "Elkins published three books about an extradimensional entity that he called 'Ra' in 1982" would be it. These are non-notable but ISBNed books published with Schiffer Publishing. They need to be treated within WP:BK just like any other book. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my lack-of-sourcing arguments in the first AfD. I can find no in-depth independent coverage to have surfaced in the last nine months. Merge would also be reasonable, but Don Elkins already covers the relevant history in sufficient detail; maybe some of the philosophy could be included in line with WP:SPS. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources establish only that a handful of folk say that they believe this stuff – the sources do not establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There seem to be no independent sources reviewing, describing or analyzing the concept, which is needed to establish notability. Comment: The page has recently been moved to  userspace; while I don't object to short term userification if someone is interested in making an effort to find sources, doing so while the article is under discussion is disruptive and hopefully will be undone. Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that the article will be deleted. It is not disruptive to move the content to another space. The outcome of this AfD can delete the mainspace existence of the article and the link. So, what is the problem then?Logos5557 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is disruptive because this AFD is open for another 4 days and your move hampers editors' from reviewing the article. Also, temporary userification is justified only if there isn't, or hasn't been, enough time to improve the article before of during the AFD, and is not a permanent holding space for content not fit for mainspace. Can some admin please undo the move for now ? Abecedare (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the article is really going to be deleted, WP:SNOW. I think we can speedy-close this. It is also arguable to userify content provided there is an active attempt at salvaging material within Wikipedia articles. Moving articles to user space just to keep them there is an abuse of the freedom granted to editors in using their user space. After all we ave seen from Logos5557, I consider it extremely unlikely that there is going to be any good faith attempt at building the Don Elkins article within project guidelines. As such, the userified page is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be taken to WP:MfD. People need to learn that it is ever so much simpler to just keep their private stuff at wordpress or some other free provider. This is simply not something Wikipedia is for.
 * also, the Don Elkins article needs to be reviewed with respect to WP:BIO. It is very far from clear that it meets notability threshold, see Talk:Don Elkins. It may be a good idea to submit it to AfD too. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong.. This is another misconception of yours. Check this link which reads "The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Logos5557 (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I have just checked the images, and all but the Nasa image appear to be copyvios. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 15:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Copying the text of the article into user space is fine... blanking the page was not the right thing to do (the AfD tag specifically says not to do so, in bold)... but redirecting the title while an AfD determination is pending was definitely wrong (editors may think that we are discussing the target Don Elkins article).  Given the comments so far, I suspect that the article will be either redirected or deleted outright... but that should take place AFTER this discussion closes. I have undone the redirect. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this comment is based on the common misconception that AfDs concern article contents, while in reality they concern article scopes. If Don Elkins passes WP:NOTE, I see no reason to objet to the presence of a Ra (channeled entity) redirect pointing to it. If this is the AfD outcome, that's fine. But I have taken it upon me to move the Elkins article to L/L Research in the meantime, and Ra (channeled entity) should now properly be a section redirect to  L/L Research. As to whether  L/L Research passes WP:ORG, I think this will be an entirely new AfD, which hopefully will be less hampered by misunderstandings than this one.
 * by the way, Blueboar, copy-pasting articles to user space is highly problematic for licencing reasons. If you copy-paste an article and the original article is then deleted, you find yourself in blatant violation of GFDL. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

C-JEAN. Hi, admins. You and we know that RA was "channeled" by Carla Rueckert. NOW, why is "Edgar Cayce" not a "problem" in this encyclo?? Mr. Cayce's ways of communication are EXACTLY the same as Carla L. Rueckert's. So, to NOT delete this part of the case, at least, merge it with Carla L. Rueckert, or her husband, please ?? Thx. C-JEAN (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * please read WP:OTHERCRAP. Then, please read WP:BIO. Then note how the Edgar Cayce article has a literature section which gives full monographic biographies of Cayce, written by third parties. You should now be in a position to answer your own questions. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi admins. I did go read the 2 suggested subjects. And in one of them it talks about "Pokemon_test". So I did the experiment to put Pokemon in the [search] button and IT IS UNBELIEVABLE ! ! It is there? I can't understand why you keep Pokemon, and want to kill Ra channeling (the same as Edgar Cayce), a MAJOR realisation of Carla. Pokemon is sooooo a **mondaine** subject. I did another experiment. I did write [What the BLEEP] on the button, and IT IS THERE !! CONGRATS, admins. You have keep a VERY important film in the history of cinema, and of the planet, so far. It **IS** de 3 DVDs kit of "What the BLEEP!? down the rabbit whole" that made me "progress" towards Carla and her very important works. So, I DID read cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; ! I don't understand: That IS exactly what you base your "delete" proposition on. . . So, if you are right with your reasons for the delete, we respectfuly ask if you could merge that part of the "dossier" in Carla Rueckert's file, please? The RA material was a 4 YEAR job. Read the beginning of it, you will see how serious the setup was made, how serious the "protection" was done before the sessions, and that Carla is a serious catholic woman, still alive (reason for no "bio", yet!!!) [ and I am NOT a catholic instigator/promoter! ]. See how Carla had lots of pain during her sessions, and she did NOT stop. . . Conclusion: we would be very thankful if you could simply merge this "field of knowledge" with Carla Rueckert and her husband Don Elkins. Thanks. C-JEAN (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you didn't exactly get the point of the page you were "reading" but never mind. Ra is now duly covered in a section at the L/L Research article. You will please note that this article is tagged with notability, and may also be deleted unless notability is established. Read WP:ORG to understand what this means. If no third party references to "L/L Research" are brought forward, Wikipedia will be forced to conclude that nobody in the wide world has ever cared about "L/L Research" and that the subject is therefore "not notable". If you disagree with this, the burden lies on you to show that it is otherwise. --dab (𒁳) 16:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice, those commenting on this may also wish to comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra_(channeled_entity). Irbisgreif (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Hi, again. Hi, admins. I understand your carefulness/prudence with entries in the encyclo. For { notability }, here are sites that link to Ra, in a way or another. Meaning via the links in web pages, or via the documentations, in the hard disks. Some involve $money, and many are TOTALY FREE. Prooving their honnesty:

ABC Online Forum http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive52/newposts/362/topic362627.shtm

BBC NEWS ; Talk about Newsnight ; Latest news FORUM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/latest_news_its_the_end_of_the_world.html

BBS radio. The Don & Wynn Show with guest Carla Rueckert. http://www.bbsradio.com/bbc/don_wynn_show/transcript_12-3-05.shtml

Learn about the amazing work. . . ALL free. http://www.dvfugit.com/lawofone.php

Divine Cosmos Discussions = $ and free. http://www.divinecosmos.com/forums/search.php?s=347985708230bd2bc663a620fb7d67fe&do=getnew

Bring4th Carla forum. http://www.bring4th.org/forums/search.php?action=getnew

Project Camelot, = free for L/L http://www.projectcamelot.org/

Law of One ___RA___ PDFs == FREE for ALL of it http://www.thesonsofthelawofone.com/lawofonepdfs.html

Above top secret forum = BIG membership ! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/stats.html http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread457086/pg1&addstar=1&on=6217602#pid6217602

Introduction to The RA Material. . . FREE B-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLvStyrzM

David Icke's Official Forums http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-19399.html

Here is our Logistics for notability/popularity : You have decided to keep Edgar Cayce, channeling EXACTLY the same way Carla Rueckert did. But Edgar's events happened in the '30s. Carla's RA events happened in the '80s. Soooooo Edgar had a LONG time to gain CUMULATIVE popularity, with 50 YEARS to gain it, before the internet got popular. Carla had 0 years ! She is STILL "growing" in popularity, and her story is MUCH younger, in the net. . . Soooo, to not lose the time done in Wikipidia, by the person who invested it, we ask if it could be MERGEd in L/L or Carla Rueckert, or Don Elkins, please ? Thanks. C-JEAN (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, of C-JEAN's sources, the BBC cite doesn't mention it in the article itself, just a trivial mention in a user-submitted comment, and the others are in no way reliable sources. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * C-Jean; after your last comment I am almost sure that you are a sockpuppet. While there are much more better examples of notability, the ones you gave here are really funny and eases the sole aim of this debate. The reasoning you have provided also looks only like a childish tease. Logos5557 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. (Caveat: I provided the failing GA review.) I would be very surprised if there were not reliable sources for this topic. Channeled entities are a surprisingly well-examined topic area and in the scheme of the broader topic area this is a mid-prominence alleged entity. However, it is unlikely that there are any easily available sources* and the topic's name makes it exceedingly difficult to get accurate results**, even in specialized databases. *Most sources covering specific topics in Theosophy and channeled entities are small to mid-circulation (relatively speaking) periodicals and journals in the New Age, occult, sociology, and religious studies markets. **"Ra" is not simply problematic as a commonly mentioned god name, including in compound names (c.f. Heru-ra). The serious difficulty it creates in searching for sources is because of the extremely common occurance of Egyptian pseudo-history and modern fringe revisionist Egyptian mythology in the broader topic area of spiritual, Western occultism, channeling, and related areas. That said, while I believe that sources probably exist to support an article, I also believe that it is extremely unlikely for someone not already familiar with the references to find sufficient sources to appropriate craft the article. This is compounded by the fact that nearly all editors intimately familiar with the topic seem to have a poor grasp of reliable sourcing, are familiar with the topic mainly via the primary sources and/or internet; heavily favor easily acquired online sources over far more reliable offline sources, and/or are more concerned with sharing the "truth" revealed by the channeling sessions than crafting a proper article. Deletion or redirection are the appropriate actions to take until such a time as substantial reliable coverage can be demonstrated. --Vassyana (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised when it turned out how little reception this thing has received. You need to search for "Don Elkins" and/or "Carla Rueckert", not for "Ra", which obviously will give you lots of unrelated results. Searching for Elkins and Rueckert in combination gives you very few hits e.g., but it may still be arguable to compile an article based on them. This is what I have been trying to do at L/L Research, but that article is up for deletion too, nb against my 'keep' vote. Perhaps you want to comment there, Vassyana. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

HI, Logos5557. What is "sockpuppet" ? English is not my first language. Puppet alone. I know what it is, but sock?? Anyway. I did read all 5 books of the "Ra material", and for me, I put that message at the same level as bible or coran. The Ra message answers MANY questions ! It is the reason I try to save the works of the other person(s). As I told: if Wiki keeps Pokemon and the (old) Edgar Cayce, why not the (new/young) Carla and Ra subject ??? {notability} is not here yet, it's on its way. . . B-) Is something wrong with that logic? Thanks. I will stop, after these last questions. {{ I am a member of }} C-JEAN (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * C-Jean; it seems my guess was wrong. Sockpuppetry is explained here Sock puppetry. It is not possible to save the article from deletion, as you and your fellows at bring4th are inclined to think, with the "sources" you have provided kindly :) (If you have a plan to edit articles in wikipedia, you need to familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies and guidelines). As Vassyana stated above, offline reliable third-party (i.e. secondary) sources that discuss the topic are needed. On the other hand, Ali Quadir from your forum, has a point too. Logos5557 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand who Logos5557 was suggesting C-JEAN might be a sockpuppet of, seeing that C-JEAN and Logos5557 are the only editors here objecting to the article's deletion. Perhaps Logos5557 was guessing that C-JEAN's was trolling, sort of arguing for "delete" by arguing "keep" in a deliberately clueless fashion. Which would be pure paranoia. If Wikipedia has told me something, it's that application of Hanlon's razor gives scarily accurate results. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, dab; I was also not so sure whether to describe what c-jean was doing by sockpuppetry or trolling. However, trolling is also not an exactly matching term to use for this case. Well, regarding paranoia thing, you and your fellows have pretty better & clear practices in this debate, in Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra_(channeled_entity), and in Articles_for_deletion/L/L_Research. Regarding the use of Hanlon's razor as related to this case, I will not assume bad faith for the possible implications, although you have a pattern of bad practices in civility. Logos5557 (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2009 (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.