Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (The Ra Material)


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been requested to provide a more detailed close. Basically, opinion was running 2:1 in favor of delete.  Of the various sources proposed by those arguing to keep, none seem to have been accepted by the other side as WP:RS, and there aren't any convincing policy-based arguments on the keep side which would justify going against the majority opinion.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Law of One (The Ra Material)
AfDs for this article:

 View AfD Deletion review/The Law of One (Ra material)  View AfD
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Metaphysical/Occult topic with insufficient support from reliable secondary sources. Possibly the individual authors involved with this work are notable, however this work does not seem to have attracted any attention from any trustworthy source. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    19:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    19:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Classic fringe. Plenty of discussion of the book within the very narrow group of people who think that channeling messages from aliens is a thing. There is no evidence of any widespread interest. -- ℕ  ℱ  21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the 3rd AFD discussion one editor commented "At the second AfD, the article was kept after several of us found sufficient reliable sources to indicate notability" - could somebody indicate what these sources may have been? I've not been able to identify anything that resembles a reliable secondary source, but it's possible that I have overlooked something significant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjects related to this article have gone through the ringer here at Wikipedia, but claims that it passes WP:NFRINGE have not been convincing. Basically, the only sources which discuss this book and the associated claimed channeled entity are books that take the claim seriously. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of books that are self-published about claims "discovered" during channeling sessions, and there are many instances of New Age true believers writing various supportive (and sometimes less-than-supportive when they don't think a particular channeled work is relevant) text about a particular claim. WP:FRIND is intended to ask for people who aren't in the same fringe community (and Kinney, for example, clearly is). We don't need a skeptical source, necessarily, just something WP:MAINSTREAM like a media piece, a historian, or an academic who thinks the particular fringe idea (or channeled entity in this case) is noteworthy beyond the sensationalism. Why Ra has remained in Wikipedia in spite of this clear necessity for truly independent sources is something I still don't understand. jps (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's scraped through many previous AFDs by the skin of its teeth (one of which I closed as a procedural keep), under many variant article names, so the sources on the article at present can reasonably be presumed to be what there is, and it's not really enough - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's nonsensical crap, but it's nonsensical crap that has gained itself some airtime. It's well within WP's role to describe popular delusions and the madness of crowds, without having to begin believing it ourselves. There is value in giving a sourced, rational and objective description of what this piece of hokum is.
 * I'd actually like to see more of this substantial material restored, to give better context. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So what source calls it "hokum"? That's the challenge. People that don't accord any credence to channeling messages from aliens rarely waste their time discussing books that do. That's why this is non-notable fringe and not mainstream philosophy. -- ℕ  ℱ  22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - i'd like to be able to vote keep, as this is the sort of fringe stuff that should be on en.wikipedia. However, the sources for this book make it seem un-notable, and reasonably subject to deletion.  Are there any reviews or discussion of it anywhere else?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the article history you'll see that in the past it has been considerably bigger, and with more sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As a useful rule of thumb, I find that AFDs can usually be deleted if we can find a single (preferably two) scholarly sources which significantly cover this subject. I don't think Gnosis magazine would count, it's way too in the occult bubble to be considered a reliable source. Perhaps you've seen something a bit more mainstream in your review of this article's history? If so, could you provide links here? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your understanding on "reliable source" is not correct; wP:RS. Most probably you're intermixing reliability with neutrality, or with being scholarly; see WP:BIASED. A reliable source doesn't need to be neutral; neutrality is achieved by editors by combining different sources (many of them can be biased) while reporting facts in the article. Logos (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is indeed the applicable policy here. I do not think Gnosis would count as a reliable source - not because of it's fringe bias but because of it's lack of a strong editorial policy, or any kind of academic review. We could use this source to flesh-out details of the article but we cannot use this source to attest to the subject's importance. So do we have any actual reliable secondary sources which attest to this subject's importance? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be exact WP:RS is a guideline. To bring it into play there are more foundational issue to attend to first (neutrality principally in this case). In any case yes, an article in Gnosis by the guy who both owns and edits it is would not be reliable anyway, even if it weren't such crap. It counts as a fringe WP:SPS Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "full" version of this article is something like this:
 * That included one of the refs that I see as just the sort of thing we need here (no idea why it was removed), Stephen Tyman's A Fool's Phenomenology. It fits this particular tale into a taxonomy of such things: which identifiable and recurring themes it makes use of, the archetypes it refers to. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * that Tyman source actually looks promising. Have you got it? How in-depth is its coverage? Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a clue as to Tyman's relationship to the topic: "Never has there been a greater need for a clear, accessible overview of the possibilities and pitfalls of spiritual seeking. Carla L. Rueckert has masterfully provided just such an overview. As the original channel of the Law of One series, Rueckert has fashioned a text that is profound while being also astonishingly lucid. She delves into many issues that have baffled every serious inquirer, and manages to put them on a footing that shows the possibility of a real way forward. As a spiritual manual, this work is simply unmatched. I would recommend it without qualification to any earnest seeker. —Stephen Tyman, PhD, author of A Fool’s Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution" - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The library got it for me. Tyman is clearly "new age" in that they're prepared to accept the existence of things beyond current knowledge, and thus accept a value in seeking them. However they're not gushingly gullible over it. Louie seems to think that anything beyond absolutist atheism is unacceptable to WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tyman proofreads Carla Reuckert's manuscripts, writes gushy book jacket blurbs for her,  and  appears with her as a guest speaker at "Contact with the Galactic Confederation, the RA Material, etc. Living the Law of One: A Seminar Sponsored by L/L Research and Bring4th.org" . Do I require atheist sources? No. Someone without a clear conflict of interest would be nice, though. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think those are important points. Ridiculous to rely on this as an example of independent commentary in the circumstances. It is not evidence of widespread, non-fringe interest. -- ℕ  ℱ  13:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * LEt me remind y'all that tyman is not a wp editor, so where does that COI joke come from? See WP:BIASED instead. Logos (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As Alexbrn pointed out WP:RS is not a policy. And you seem to have incomplete and inaccurate perceptions about Gnosis, maybe due to the comments on fringe noticeboard. I would recommend you to dig yourself. "GNOSIS's founder, publisher, and editor in chief was Jay Kinney, Its editor was Richard Smoley". Although Kinney's education is not so clear, Smoley's background seems adequate to me for these type of areas. Logos (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even while Smoley was an editor, Kinney remained as "editor in chief" - and owner. Alexbrn (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Although Kinney's education is not clear, he definitely must have quite an extensive expertise on religious and spiritual traditions: . Logos (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the education/expertise of the publisher or the author is germane to this discussion. My comments were directed towards Gnosis (the publication) which does not seem to be a serious academic or technical journal - the kind of thing which would clearly attest to this subject's importance. The only reason we are discussing Gnosis and it's staff is that this appears to be the best source we have for the article. If I could draw an analogy, citing Gnosis is rather like citing a fanzine as a source. The problem is not the inherent bias or lack of expertise in the subject but that inclusion in such a publication is not a good indication of notability. Fanzine publications often dwell in great detail on topics that are not notable outside of a fan community. Do you think we might be able to find a more mainstream source that can establish this subject's importance? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need "serious academic", "technical journal", or "scholarly sources" to attest the notability of these books. Do you see any of these kind of sources in The Day After Roswell? You're making too much generalizations and wrong assumptions, not to mention misinterpretations of key policies and guidelines. Gnosis was not a fanzine publication. Logos (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Um.... Yes we do. Other stuff exists (and ought to be deleted). So what? DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep In addition to the existing ones (included or not included at the moment), all the sources in this old archive are reliable (in accordance with the definition in WP:RS) and establishes notability: . Logos (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is Laura Knight-Jadczyk (whose own article was deleted) a reliable source on anything? Can you show RS status and how these are evidence of noteworthiness for each of the authors you are claiming here? Because this isn't showing it - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many reliable sources cited by wikipedia articles, whose authors/writers do not have an article in wikipedia. Just like verifiability does not mean truth, "reliable source" also does not imply a neutral, scholar or technical source. What you understand from "reliable source" does not seem correct. Questionable sources WP:QUESTIONED are in the threshold, not WP:BIASed sources. Logos (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's precisely not an answer to the question. That's a long list of apparently really terrible, low-quality sources. None of these appear to evidence notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the only available answer to your remark about "Laura Knight-Jadczyk", and you keep bringing the terminology/notion, which wp policies and guidelines do not include. Logos (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Logos, the reason (and only reason) why this article keeps getting nominated for deletion is because none of the sources meet our standards of a reliable secondary source. The standards of WP:N and WP:RS apply here. It is possible to produce an excellent article about a very fringe topic if we can find high quality sources. In this case we have not found anything better than some minor mentions and a review in an self-published occult journal (Gnosis). All we'd need to establish notability is show some significant mainstream attention to this topic. It seems that nobody (other than you) seems to think that this is an important subject.--Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources/article may not meet "your standards", but it meets wp's policies and guidelines. To be clear; while policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts WP:POL. "Anti-fringe task force" may repetitively try to manipulate some irrelevant so called "best practices" contained by WP:FRINGE to overrule other guidelines and even policies, but that doesn't change the whole scope and context. It's like the difference between the law and the enforcement. And it seems you're also having hard time to see other keep votes here. Logos (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete If there are reliable sources to prove it deserves an article, please cite them, because the ones we have shows only that it exists (like lots of things), not that it deserves its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is my understanding that this book purports to be a collection of transcripts from someone's channeling of Ra. Please let me know if anyone here believes differently, but this is clearly a hoax. Are there any reliable sources stating that this is a hoax or a figment of someone's imagination? - Location (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no difference, other than their relative popularity, between this and the Book of Mormon or Xenu. All three are fabrications, but as fabrications they have a recorded existence. WP doesn't publish hoaxes, but it does record them. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely the point. Both of those have been skeptically discussed in countless reliable sources outside of the world view. The level of popularity isn't the reason why those are notable and these aren't. But it means they are much more likely to have been written about widely by people who are happy to point out what is hokum. You can't write a balanced article if the only people writing about hokum are people who believe in it. In the absence of that wider commentary, to even attempt to rationally balance it is WP:OR. Fringe subjects make bad wikipedia articles precisely because ALL the available sources are wide-eyed and credulous -- ℕ  ℱ  02:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No; If book of mormon and xenu were skeptically discussed in countless reliable sources, that's an additional quality, but not required in WP. WP:FRINGE/WP:FRIND is not needed to be satisfied for books. It's the same as the difference between "roswell (ufo incident)" and "the day after roswell". Logos (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it is the very thing that demonstrates that they have transcended the narrow fringe sphere of interest and show a widespread interest in the details of each which is required to meet basic notability guidelines. That has clearly not been demonstrated by the book currently under consideration. -- ℕ  ℱ  13:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It appears this obscure book article has lingered on WP for quite some time as a semi-stub on the basis of references that are passing mentions of the book rather than works specifically about the book, or sources that are sufficiently comprehensive but hopelessly entrenched within the fringe bubble. It's time to trim it back to an entry at List of modern channelled texts until such time as reliable WP:FRIND sources arise that discuss the book in an in-depth and serious manner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE/WP:FRIND does not apply here. Logos (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:FRINGE is an invention that many editors have been trying to stick to. Even though Fringe theory does not satisfy notability criteria of wp, those type of editors just do not care; they radically think that it has to stay in wikipedia as an article to back up WP:FRINGE. We can't censor books in wikipedia just because they do not satisfy a misinterpreted "guideline" the misinterpreted version of a guideline. Let's get back to the basics;
 * 1-Trivial coverage of a topic/book in independent, reliable, third-party sources warrants a stub in wikipedia.
 * 2-For a topic to be able to grow past a stub/summary, there should be some extended non-trivial coverage in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.
 * 3-For neutrality, there should be some critical commentary about the topic in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.
 * So, the law of one article/books satisfies clause 1 definitely; there are plenty of sources mentioning the law of one books briefly (i.e. trivial coverage). It doesn't matter whether those are new-agey, spiritualist, or "woo-woo" sources; the only prerequisite is "independent, reliable, third-party". Clause 2 is also satisfied by Kinney's article about the law of one books in Gnosis magazine. Some editors may argue that it's not enough. Then there are below sources;
 * -Klimo, Jon (1987). Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources. North Atlantic Books. p. 203. ISBN 9781556432484.
 * -Wicherink, Jan (2008). "The law of One" (PDF). Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. Piramidions. pp. 193–197. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6.
 * -Hastings, Arthur. With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channelingl. Holt Rinehart and Winston (March 1991). p. 60. ISBN 9780030471643.
 * -Andrew Ross (1991). Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits. Verso. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-0-86091-567-6. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
 * Kinney's article contains some critics, therefore clause 3 is also satisfied. Finally, nearly all of the content in the law of one article are from mainly Kinney's article/commentary in Gnosis magazie. So, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is also not violated. Logos (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, we can "censor books in wikipedia just because they do not satisfy" an actual guideline. The interpretation of guidelines is up to the community. Of course it is still possible to go overboard and "misinterpret" guidelines, but it's always going to be difficult to be sure that you are the only person who has the "correct" interpretation. At the end of the day, guidelines are just that, guidelines on which to base case-by-case debate on fitness for inclusion. I am "inclusionist" in the "mergist" sense, and I see no harm in keeping entries even for the most crappy of books, the "guideline" part is about not blowing their notability out of proportion. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected the wrong expression above. Logos (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, Logos, I see you have a WP:COI. Please tread easy and let the community figure it out. If you have a personal involvement with L/L Research, I suggest you may advise on talkpages, but you should avoid getting into editing disputes. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any COI other than personal interest in the law of one books. Knowing the exact date of Maccarthy's joining to llresearch does not mean that I have a personal involvement with them. Contact a checkuser if you have any doubt. All these "correct" information are on internet; why don't you visit llresearch and find the correct information before inserting the incorrect WP:OR pieces into the article repetitively. Logos (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, so you don't have a "COI" technically. Sure, you are welcome to fix mistakes. My point is that you are an editor with an agenda. No checkuser is needed for this observation, a look at your user page and edit history is more than enough. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge -- it's just a 1980s ancient astronaut book. No big deal, don't create a bureaucratic issue for it. We don't need it, but it's nice to have it because it will assist the research of people looking into 1980s New Age stuff. Either keep it around as a short factual entry, or merge it into a short paragraph in some larger ancient astronauts article. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I noted Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption under "see also". This is a joke church founded by John Oliver for his show, to make the point that it is ridiculously easy to be recognized as a church in the US. There is no apparent relation to the topic at hand, but the fact that some random joke by a popular satirist gets a lengthy article which exists apparently uncontested for WP:NOTE to me shows the persisting systemic bias on Wikipedia: sure, I get it, Oliver's "church" is a joke, and therefore "smart", so we like it and love to keep articles about it; Rueckert's chanelling, otoh, is meant seriously, and thus (gasp) "stupid", and so we are going to give it a hard time just to signal to each other that we are "smart". Never mind that one topic is an off-hand joke made on TV one week, while the other is an ongoing publication effort sustained for 30 years, on thousands of pages, sold commercially and reviewed in the relevant (i.e. "New Agey") literature. As long as Wikipedians keep getting their tribal affiliations mixed up with their notability judgements, the system will be broken. But apparently it is very, very diffiult even for people of above-average intelligence to perform rational cogitation detached from one's social conditioning and tribal loyalties. I am just saying. Look, I realize there is no "real value" in this channeled stuff, but it is part of an entire subculture which was very much alive during the entire second half of the 20th century, so there can hardly be any debate on "notability" per se. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But why are there so few sources that aren't in the "New Agey" literature in comparison to other channeled literature (e.g. Ramtha)? jps (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2015 (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.