Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (Ra material) (3rd 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 Snow keep. Kept, keeping ratified at DRV, this re-re-nomination posted slightly over an hour later; no chance this will pass David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This book series is not notable and does not have enough significant coverage and notable, reliable sources to justify an article.

This article is permitted to be under another AFD nomination in accordance to Roy Smith's approval: "If somebody wants to bring this back to AfD for another discussion of the merits of the article itself, they're free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)" --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - The previous AFD just last week found there was sufficient sources and notability to keep. The Deletion review found that there was no error in that determination.  While consensus may change over time, this AFD was started a day after the previous KEEP and ENDORSE, which strikes me as a desire to delete at any price, and seems a bit disruptive. Note: I was the closing admin for the last AFD. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  02:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Objection - I am following Wikipedia policy and acting within what is freely enabled and permitted. I have not acted against any general guideline and I will accept the inevitable consensus these discussions will bring. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This same user has now nominated this article or its fork for deletion three times in a month and also requested a deletion review after the previous AFD resulted in a keep. I agree with Dennis Brown that it starts to seem like a desire to delete at any price. Bathmiaios (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will now address the statement of "a desire to delete at any price." I desire to see this article covered significantly and reliably. I am using the deletion process to audit this article and its sources, and maximize the amount of scrutiny this article and every article deserves. As the article currently stands, I believe the article is best deleted while its potential rebirth and future is determined by better sources. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep. Per . It's far too soon for yet another AfD. The article is now little more than a stub based on the amount of material cut since it first appeared at AfD. The sourcing is sufficient to justify its continued existence per WP:GNG. Philg88 ♦talk 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * speedy close per WP:POINT. Are AfDs to be re-opened continually until they produce the "right" answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:POINT and WP:SNOW. At the second AfD, the article was kept after several of us found sufficient reliable sources to indicate notability. I understand from others' statements above that the deletion review was closed with an endorsement of the keep decision. It should also be noted that the nominator more than once radically truncated the article during the 2nd AfD, had done so during the AfD for the fork at The Law of One (this article's original title), and has now done so to this article again prior to the renomination, and that two other editors have also been radically shortening it; see discussion on the article talk page regarding the sources that were present in the article prior to the second AfD. The current state of the article is misleading in this respect; however, the criterion for keeping it is notability as indicated by what sources exist, not what sources are present in it. It remains notable under applicable guidelines for books. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (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.