Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Children of The Law of One and the Lost Teachings of Atlantis


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Children of The Law of One and the Lost Teachings of Atlantis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Entry for self-published crank occult/parapsychology book. Prod declined without comment. I can find some references to it through Google, but only from other crank books & sites. Needs either major rewrite or deletion, I prefer the latter. Hairhorn (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a comment on the articles discussion page giving my argument, how did you not see it? I'll restate it here:

1) it is not occult or parapsychology, what is your source for this? or is labelling it like this a matter of your opinion?

2) it has ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers, is sold on Amazon and resold on many ebook selling websites, and the author's name gets over a million Google results - clearly many people have read it including Robert Watts the producer of Star Wars and Indiana Jones

3) I don't see how content or publication method are relevant to whether a book desrves a Wikipedia article or not, why is The Satanic Bible allowed an article? Many people have read this book therefore it should have a Wikipedia article

I find your ignoring of the discussion page and the labelling of this book as occult without any source very unprofessional, you have no basis for suggesting deletion of this article and frankly I'm a little offended that an article I put alot of effort into is considered unworthy because of the dislike of the it's content without even having read it.

-Words in sanskrit (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked only in the edit summary, where I would expect to see a de-prodding comment. Sorry for not seeing the talk page. As for your points: having an ISBN and being sold on Amazon establish nothing; it is still a self-published book, not that self-published books are forbidden from having entries. As for "occult", I can only base my opion on the online text, wich is available at http://www.atlantis.to/. Amazon's tags put it into "new age", "reincarnation", "science fiction", etc. I will concede that I am not the most sympathetic person when it comes to this sort of thing, but at a bare minimun the article needs independent sources to establish notability. There is no reason to take this personally (and no one around here is "professional", we are all amateurs). Hairhorn (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for taking it personally. New Age and Occult are very different, belief in reincarnation, meditation, etc. have nothing to do with black magic, devil worshipping, etc. Other than Amazon or Google I don't think there are any reputable independant sources for this book's notability as it is not sold in any chain bookstores so it can not be tracked by bestseller lists however I am writing a book and have researched the publishing industry and I continuously hear from many sources how incredibly difficult it is to get sold at chain bookstores and even if you do you have to sell the books at 40% of the sale price or less. As far as self publishing goes this book has been extremely succesful. Given that Wikipedia itself has become more popular than any published encyclopedia through being self published (per se) I think it would be fair to cut other succesful self published information mediums some slack. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, we need plenty of sources for self-published books (which the Satanic Bible has), and this has no sources at all. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are a handful of GScholar and Gbooks  hits, there's a lack of proper independant coverage. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - essentially OR, "underground" NN book publish by a vanity press. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but there is a world of difference between vanity press and independant publishing, for one thing we don't know if it is print on demand or offset printing but even if it was print on demand it is very different from a vanity press. A vanity press is a press that publishes copies that you don't intened on selling or sell very few copies of, print on demand is when you actually intened on selling hundreds or thousands of copies but do not meet the minimum copy requirements of offset printing because you can't afford it. Please research the publishing industry more thoroughly before making such a claim, a vanity press book would never be sold on Amazon. Furthermore isn't "essentially" a weasel word? And how is this book underground if it's sold on Amazon? Your whole comment is "essentially" followed by a bunch of made up acusations with no basis, if anything should be deleted it's your comment. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Amazon selling it? Fine - but not an indicator of notability. They don't carry large stocks of the lesser known titles. They can advertise anything they can get on call-off. Commercial publishers have to be sure of sales. They can't afford to produce books and place them in countless retailers without being reasonably certain that the books are going to move. Yes, there is a difference between self-publishing and vanity. Vanity publishing is for people who really just want to see themselves in print. Self-publishing is usually for people who can't get commercially published, but think they have written an undiscovered bestseller. Usually, they are wrong. It can be for people who have a book on something of purely localised interest that has a limited market. OK, but that's not notable either. Ah yes, here we are. stores.lulu.com/thegoldenrule (I've taken the http bit off to avoid spam filtering here.) The 'storefront' for Windsor Hill. Definitely self-published via our old friends lulu.com. A sound enough outfit to work with, so far as I am aware, unlike some of the vanity publishers who can be rogues. But not an indicator of Wikipedia required notability. Peridon (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd like to restate that I am a wannabe author writing a book and I have read several books on independant publishing and I would like to tell you that the publshing process is about as effective at "quality control" as the music business. Just like how most artists and bands on the radio today aren't cream of the crop quality (to say the least) but rather what will sell the best to the most people, the same applies to authors. In christian publishing for example the major christian publishers almost exclusively publish books written by (or ghost written under the name of) already famous clergy, athletes, etc. rather than an unknown author with a good book. 99% of the books in a bookstore I would never want to buy, yes that also has to do with me being out of the intended market for them but it also has to do with the fact that mainstream books, whether fiction or non-fiction, aren't necessarily the best ones, just the ones that will grab peoples attention and sell well - a book cover industry rather and a book industry. Meanwhile the book in question has changed so many peoples lives in ways no book ever has before, other than the bible or equivelant scriptures. Why do user testimonials not count? Why does Google search results of an authors name not count? Why does so many online vendors (including the largest one of all) reselling the book not count? What independant source are you guys looking for exactly? I have yet to hear of an "independant best seller list", the closest things are Google and Amazon. Many thosuands of people have read this book, clearly a large chunk of those people enjoyed it more than most others books they have read, how does that not count as significance? Is Wikipedia just an echo chamber of things you can find anywhere else? The notability requirements page clearly was not wirtten with independant books in mind, yet lots of people read them and would want Wikipedia articles on the more popular ones, perhaps it's that requirement rather than this article that needs adjustment. This book is inarguably one of the most popular independant books, if this book doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article then what independant book does? -Words in sanskrit (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were verifiably one of the most popular independent books, that might help. But "arguably" doesn't cut it. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with testimonials is that they are not considered reliable info, being very easy to fix. Wikipedia doesn't even consider Wikipedia to be a suitable reference for this same reason. Also out are blogs, twitters, Myspace and so on. 'Inarguably'? Sorry, but WE'RE arguing. Independently published material can be notable - but you've got to follow the guidelines and produce the sort of evidence that's acceptable. And I've not seen any so far. Amazon will, so far as I can see, list anything legal so long as they don't have to carry stocks of it beyond a handful of copies - or may even list it on a call-off basis. The same goes for the other online sellers. If the book was on the shelves of Waterstones, I'd be more impressed. If it was actually selling from their shelves, I'd be even more impressed. OK, a lot of the books on their shelves are drivel. They are drivel that sells. If they didn't, they wouldn't be stocked in the first place, or would get remaindered quickly. Incidentally, I've found mentions of these titles (in non-referenceable sites) that conflict. Some refer to science fiction, some to 'spirituality'. As one who has read quite a bit of Atlantean and similar stuff - even wading through Churchward and Blavatsky - the mention of Atlantis suggests fringe occult. Not as large a market as it used to be, and somewhat discredited. However, if sales can be reliably proven, and independEnt sources cited, and the guidelines met, notability could be established nonetheless. Peridon (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  the printed version of the book is distributed by a large distributor, whether a store accepts it or not is their individual choice but regardless the book can be sold at chain stores and local bookstores which I think qualifies as notability, it's not easy to get a distributor to accept your book and bookstores rely on the distributor as their first level filter. http://go.newleaf-dist.com/scripts/ps?TEMPLATE_SELLSHEET.PUBLIC~iact~handle=30513~Sid=VS|SEARCH.PUBLIC*VS144312*804~Vcs=1467758444849.6252 The book's website says they're also distributed by Ingram but the search function on the Ingram websites doesn't work for me reason for some reason. They also said they were a #7 bestseller in the US on some list I can't seem to find. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck through your second keep !vote as you only get one. (So do the rest of us.) Anything else has to be a Comment or such. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know, thank you for your help. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 'Can be'? But is it? 'Can be' does nothing for notability. Nor does a not accessible listing. Ingram's search works for me, but comes up with no result for the first half of the title (without quotes). Nor for the second half. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well now we're entering the realm of subjectivism, if a book is a sold at many respected bookstores - which is a very competitive market - that still doesn't count as it being notable? Is Wikipedia only for books on bestseller lists? The notability standards are vague and meant to be applied across many very different mediums with varying abundances of respected thrid party sources. These were specifics which the writers of the notability guidelines were seemingly not aware of. You can't write the same standards for independant books as you would for independant music even because there's many magazines and respected ezines that review independant music and count as respected thrid party sources, but as far as respected third party sources that review independant books I haven't heard of any, just non notable soruces like Amazon user reviews, personal websites, etc. Can you just cut this book some slack? There is no independant best seller list, there is no magazine for reviewing independant non-fiction books, clearly the notability guidelines can not be applied to independant non-fiction books. I have given you the closest things you will ever find to independant book notability. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually on a side note this book was reviewed by "Venture Inward" the magainze of the Assosiation for Research and Enlightenment, the group with the legal rights to Edgar Cayce's readings. How do I give a link to a magazine article though? -Words in sanskrit (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I find that the more desperate the promoter gets, and the more he/she tells us how to define notability, the less the article deserves to survive. (Original research, there, OK.) Subjectivism? You couldn't access Ingram. I could - with a negative result. Does that negative result mean the Ingram system isn't working, or does it mean that there is simply no listing there? Is that subjective? Is my comment about 'can be' subjective? 'Cut some slack'? This book may have more going for it than some of the utter drivel that people try to promote here, but so far as I can see it hasn't achieved enough BY WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES AND DEFINITIONS to merit an article. I for one don't regard a review by a Cayce oriented group as independEnt. I wouldn't regard a Donnelly oriented group as independent either. It is hard to establish notability for independent publications. I'm not denying it. The same goes for self-published music. A magazine may be cited by giving title and publication date, but often references not easily accessible may be discounted in these proceedings. I've checked out some that were completely fabricated by the poster. I'm not saying you would do that, but some might. Sorry if this has been thrown together - I've just had a long day at work and am out again early. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 25 June 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.