Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One


 * 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)

The Law of One

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page has notability issues, whether you're looking at it from WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:FRINGE. At first glance, it has a large amount of sources (including one "New York Times bestseller", as mentioned on the talk page), but at least a dozen of those are by the creators of this philosophy (that includes the aforementioned book). The rest of the sources are either self-published websites, or books by 'true believers' that either reiterate the text here, or simply mention the Law of One in passing. I have been unable to find any neutral, outside sources for this. No media coverage, no critical analysis by someone outside the belief system. Additionally, a walled garden has been built around the article, with Jim McCarty (author), Carla L. Rueckert, and Don Elkins existing as little more than backlinks. It's also worth noting that there's already been several discussions about this before. Law of One was deleted several years ago. As was Ra (channeled entity) (mentioned in the first paragraph). And L/L Research (the first external link on the article) was redirected to Ancient astronauts. I think 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)
 * Delete as nominator. InShaneee (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * This meets WP:GNG standards in that it has received significant coverage from secondary sources, which is the primary requirement for notability as per WP:N and WP:GNG.
 * WP:ORG does not apply whatsoever to this article. The 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. I strongly suggest that User:InShaneee check him or herself for 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:NPOV and a failure to cite secondary sources, despite the widespread agreement that such sources do exist and that the topic is therefore notable in according with 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:BKCRIT as this article deals with a series of notable books. One of the tests for notability of a book is if it has made a significant contribution to another notable book, art form, or event. The Law of One series played a significant role promulgating the 2012 phenomenon. This role has been examined in books like The Source Field Investigations which has been cited by the article and is a New York Times Bestseller that discusses the 2012 phenomenon. The fact that The Law of One series played a key role in this is sufficient to make it notable as WP:BK and 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 The Law of One played in the 2012 phenomenon. If User:InShanee would have some WP:FAITH and give me some time, (as opposed to speedy deletion!) I could expand the article in this direction enhancing the article's notability. One of the issues with the previous articles on this subject was that they did not review critical secondary sources. This current article, however, does so and already covers some of this critical activity, contributing to notability both for WP:FRINGE and WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG.
 * Finally, WP:NPOV has been achieved in the current article. If you believe that WP:NPOV has been remotely violated you will need to make a specific argument, showing specifically how and where 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.
 * I'll clarify that I applied WP:ORG because, as written, the article seems to be more about the 'school of thought' that is The Law of One, rather than the book itself. If we are to judge the article by WP:NBOOK instead, most of the citations become superfluous. Since the article is almost entirely a summation of the book's text, there's little reason to cite anything aside from the book itself, which of course leaves the article to want for supporting references again. This, again, brings it back to WP:FRINGE and the lack of media coverage. InShaneee (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:BKCRIT, WP:GNG, WP:FRINGE. These guidelines state that only "one" criterion from the list of notability rules of thumb must be met to qualify as notable. Since there is an large amount of cultural activity with origin in this series of books I determined that I should be able to find ample secondary sources that would satisfy the notability requirements listed on WP:BKCRIT, WP:GNG, and WP:FRINGE.
 * Media coverage is not a requirement for WP:FRINGE. The listed requirement is for critical activity. 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:FRINGE in so far as the major claims made by the book are fringe theories. Whether this makes the article about the series of books WP:FRINGE or not, I'm not sure because I haven't dealt with this on wikipedia before. But as far as I can see, the article satisfies notability whether it is looked at as WP:FRINGE or WP:BKCRIT or just WP:GNG. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep: These books are widely discussed and that notability is clearly shown in the references. A lack of critical review does not change that. --Neoconfederate (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cite Bilbo's argument above. --Neoconfederate (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Closing admin: please note that User:Bilbobagginsesprecious has been attempting to solicit sympathetic votes for this discussion. InShaneee (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had not seen that statement nor met this user prior to finding this AFD. --Neoconfederate (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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 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)


 * 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)
 * If articles like 2012 phenomenon, A Course in Miracles, and Moon landing conspiracy theories have a place on wikipedia, why would this religion not have a place? My argument for notability is based on fulfilling the guidelines for notability established by WP:GNG, WP:BKCRIT, and 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 Don Elkins because Don Elkins is far less notable than The Law of One series of books. This series of books contributed to New Age beliefs and has essentially founded a religion and a philosophy, depending on who you ask. Notable religions and philosophies--no matter how "hilarious"--have a place on wikipedia. Don Elkins is less notable than The Law of One series of books--there are far fewer secondary sources that discuss the man Don Elkins than there are that critically discuss the series of books he co-authored. Merging makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Either The Law of One series of books is notable as a series of books, as a religion, as a philosophy, and as a cultural artifact that contributed to New Age beliefs and 2012 phenomenon or the series of books is not notable and should be deleted. The request to merge is completely inappropriate and reflects WP:Ownership issues. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * fix and keep. Obviously, we need to revert the jokers who apparently used this page to parody bad writing on Wikipedia. Once we have cut down the nonsense, there is a brief article in this. Needless to say, there is one article, i.e. the WP:1E bio pages of Don Elkins and Carla L. Rueckert should be merged. Then the rambling WP:BOMBARD plot summary needs to go, and the page needs to focus on its notability in the "2012 phenomenon" and what not. And now I feel silly for having wasted 20 minutes of my life on this drivel.  The problem here is clearly not with the existence of the page, but with its being taken to town by Hanlon's editors (either incompetent or trolling, we don't know, but the treatment is the same for both cases) --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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 2012 phenomenon. Eitherway, the problem must be solved by our disciplinary measures, and not on this forum. Could the closing admin please issue a couple of warnings and/or blocks. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (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.
 * (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.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It's clear I've made a mistake. My apologies. --Neoconfederate (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Debunked: That has already been proven false. Many of the sources are completely independent books. --Neoconfederate (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as simply not notable outside what seems to be a walled garden of similar fringe matter. Reliability of sources is the key here and per DGG I can't find much interest from outside. Additionally, if I attempt to verify statements in the article against the provided sources (for instance the first one, about authorship) I do not always find that the source supports the statement. What would be useful would be for the article's supporters to list here the one or two references to these works in 3rd party, independendent, reliable sources that most support claims for notability. Ideally a review in a print newspaper. Mcewan (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If an article requires a slight improvement, like what you're mentioning, why should it be completely deleted? I just started sourcing this article three days ago. I can't spend every waking minute editing and my desire to improve it is certainly undermined when people want to delete it without even reading all the secondary material. Your argument is essentially proof by assertion because while you're comfortable holding the strong opinion that all this work should be scrapped, you're not interested enough to actually verify and support the claims your making. The sourcing can still be improved, but I can't do this when the article is deleted. The article was tagged for improvement three days ago. I found out about that and started improving it. Why is the wikipedia time crunch so severe? The fact that I came up with 10+ new independent, reliable, verifiable secondary sources in three days should serve as evidence that I can find even more. If you guys would lay off I could actually get some page numbers, for instance. Obviously wikipedia is hostile to content creators and really just a haven for those who love to delete and lawyer. Whether this article gets deleted or not will let me know whether I'm wasting my time trying to document fringe spirituality and philosophy. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)


 * I've already listed these sources elsewhere. Here is a condensed list of the higher quality sources.


 * Stephen Tyman A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution ISBN 978-0761833567
 * David Wilcock The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations Behind the 2012 Prophecies ISBN 0-525-95204-7
 * Rick Cook Return of the Aeons ISBN 978-1479364268
 * Jean-Claude Koven Going Deeper ISBN 978-0972395458
 * Jan Wicherink Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6
 * Wynn Free The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?. Frog Books. ISBN 978-1583940839


 * 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 David Wilcock is someone who actually takes the 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.
 * By the way, Gnosis Magazine (Gnosis (magazine)) counts as media coverage. Their coverage of the series of books was critical and skeptical without being completely uninterested, as most of you guys who want to delete this stuff are. Likewise, I find The Law of One series interesting even though I reject the claims of being authored by aliens. Can you really say that this deletion effort isn't primarily based on hostility toward the spiritual claims of the books rather than some issue with notability? There are plenty of articles on wikipedia about books and religions with fewer intellectual reviews and less cultural impact than this series of books. A straight up normal non-admin reading of WP:BKCRIT and WP:FRINGE says to me that these books easily achieve notability even if the article needs improvement. I honestly don't understand how you guys are interpreting pages like WP:BKCRIT WP:FRINGE and WP:NBOOK to determine that this spiritual, religious, and philosophical content is non-notable. Obviously it's not notable to an academic standard, or to a scientific standard, but those tests aren't the right tests to be applying. It is notable to the standards listed on WP:BKCRIT, WP:FRINGE, and 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.
 * 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)

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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 is "Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." By your standard of independence, Leibniz would not be a notable secondary source for Spinoza because they met once in 1676. Likewise, if 100 book authors go to a conference and talk to each other, are all their books no longer independent? Do all of those authors no longer count as valid citations? This is absurd. Just because the authors of those books might agree with some (or even all) of the claims--and EVEN IF some of the authors have met each other--doesn't mean they aren't independent. The only people who are not independent are those involves in writing or publishing the original series of books according to 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)
 * 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)

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

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

Since the notability requirement is for one or more 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

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

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

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 and independent 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

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 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.



Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @ Mrathel Thanks for your comment, but you have it completely backwards. The book series directly covers everything mentioned in the article, and the cited sources then interpret the concepts in the book series. The philosophical concepts exposited in the series are the subject of debate among secondary sources. An analogy would be the Torah and the Talmud. The Torah was the original work. The Talmud is a commentary on, and interpretation of, the Torah. The existence of the Talmud proves the notability of the Torah. The Law of One book series is like the Torah. The 17+ cited sources are like the Talmud (this is the definition of "secondary source" you know). A student's term paper that has been heavily cited by books that meet WP:NBOOK WOULD be considered notable by 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.
 * 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 Heidegger article without having read Heidegger, going, "what is all this dumb shit? It's just a bunch of disjointed thoughts pieced together from hundreds of people! I've never read his books but I know that this article doesn't represent his books!!!" IF YOU'VE NEVER READ THE BOOK HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE ARTICLE DOESN'T REPRESENT IT? Those of us who bothered to read it are staring in disbelief about how you guys can make these ridiculous disconnected claims. The book is crazy, sure, it's full of insanity. The book is a big syncretist hodgepodge. But, it does have a system to it, as wrong as I happen to think that system is, the book has been and continues to be very influential in the New Age community. This article covers all the major concepts described in the book and does it very faithfully and neutrally. That's more than can be said for a lot of wikipedia articles. The written 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Closing admin: Objectively, I believe the case of notability has been made exceptionally clear. This was never an article about a belief system but a book and its contents with the citations only proving its content and notability. However, the article may need to be rewritten. Knowing this, the article should be kept and improved upon. --Neoconfederate (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Refuted! -- Coverage in academic journals is NOT a requirement for notability according to WP:NBOOK. If my exhaustive demonstration of notability for WP:NBOOK has an error you need to specifically point out that error. Where does it say that academic coverage is necessary for 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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 due to not being held by the Library of Congress which is the country they were published in. That this is a series of books, the majority of which don't meet the threshold for WP:NBOOK is an important fact which has a bearing on whether this article should be deleted, and undermines arguments based on 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))
 * 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So you agree with WP:NBOOK only when it suits your argument - reference to WP:FRINGE isn't even required, you fail to establish notability for the book because it is specifically excluded from 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:BK and WP:BKCRIT which are both references to WP:NBOOK and thus both require to meet the thresholds noted there.  Those thresholds are not met.  I can only suggest that you make appropriate representations in the proper place if you wish to change these guidelines, until such times, I think it is quite reasonable and appropriate for us to follow them as they stand. For this reason, WP:BK,WP:BKCRIT, or WP:NBOOK cannot be met in relation to the books currently under consideration.  nonsense  ferret  20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this fringe-subject article. The vast majority of the sources are unreliable. Majoreditor (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to reference that claim? What sources are unreliable and why? --Neoconfederate (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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: Emeka, I'll Teach My Dog 100 Words, The Fate of the Phoenix, Festivals (1973 book). Why have these books sat on wikipedia for more than six years, with no secondary sources, no exhaustive demonstration of notability, little more than an ISBN and an article written by one person? They aren't up for deletion because they don't contain religious views that are vigorously opposed by ideological crusaders. The only reason people want to delete this article is because they are ideologically opposed to its claims, and ideologically opposed to its connection with the New Age community. Contrary to their views, the connection to New Age beliefs is what makes it notable not what makes it unsuitable for wikipedia. The people voting for delete have again and again said stuff like, "This nonsense has no place on wikipedia!" -- but their personal opinion on what is and what is not nonsense is not relevant. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the content of the book. If you want to delete an article because notability has not been demonstrated, go delete Emeka or one of the thousands of other books that have articles with zero demonstration of notability--this book has had its notability exhaustively and irrefutably established. Any argument to the contrary is in direct contradiction with the established notability guidelines at WP:NBOOK. This article has amply established notability, to a far greater extent than the thousands of uncited wikipedia book articles that are allowed to stand. The delete votes for this article are based on ideological opposition rather than well-reasoned arguments that cite wikipedia rules. Many of the people voting for delete have overtly failed to maintain 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * If you want to claim that I've violated WP:CIVIL or WP:DONTBITE you should make that argument instead of engaging in proof by assertion. I'm not attacking any individual, I'm pointing out that the general trend of opposition to this article is unique on wikipedia and reflects not a measured, 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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:  Logos5557 (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment There was strong consensus 3 years ago to delete the article about the extraterrestrial whose channelled utterances are the main source for this book (at Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination)). To what extent the current article about the book covers the same material, I don't know, but it doesn't seem that any new coverage of either the book or the entity has happened in the intervening years. Mcewan (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge. Agree with Mrathel. Of the sources given, only one or two such as The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds by James R. Lewis qualify as independent commentary on this particular topic. Books with "hidden science" or "secret history" or "secret cipher" etc. in their titles are naturally discounted as non-objective and unreliable. If suitable reliably-sourced coverage can be found, the topic may deserve a paragraph or two in UFO religions. Or perhaps move the material into List of modern channelled texts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. All these misinterpretations of wikipedia policies and guidelines had been discussed and argued against in the past. Nevertheless, the very same misinterpretations have been popping up again & again. Not any wikipedia user can disregard "fringe secondary sources" or "secondary sources written with paranormal point of view", and claim that these type of sources are non-objective and unreliable; because wikipedia policies/guidelines do not. Objectivity is not about objectiveness of the source about the topic but about the evidence of notability . 3 years ago, Ra (channeled entity) article had grown past the point, which would be able to secure a place in wikipedia. However, that did not and does not mean that this topic/subject was/is not notable and was/is not reliably sourced.
 * For whom interested:, , , . Logos5557 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

* 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Goldfringer ( talk ) 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.