Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/The Law of One - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 30 January 2013 (Relisting debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:24, 30 January 2013 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (Relisting debate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Law of One

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
The Law of One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)

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.
I cite Bilbo's argument above. --Neoconfederate (talk) 12:07, 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". ChakaKong 23:29, 22 January 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 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)
  • 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.
  1. Stephen Tyman A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution ISBN 978-0761833567
  2. David Wilcock The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations Behind the 2012 Prophecies ISBN 0-525-95204-7
  3. Rick Cook Return of the Aeons ISBN 978-1479364268
  4. Jean-Claude Koven Going Deeper ISBN 978-0972395458
  5. Jan Wicherink Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6
  6. Wynn Free The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?. Frog Books. ISBN 978-1583940839
  7. Gnosis (1995). The Inner Planes. A Journal of the Western Inner Traditions. Gnosis. Vol. 36. Gnosis.
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)

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)

Critical analysis of references

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.

— Misplaced Pages Notability Guideline 1, WP:NBOOK

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:

the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself?

— Misplaced Pages Notability Guidelines, WP:NBOOK

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, WP:NBOOK

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, WP:NBOOK

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.

— Misplaced Pages Notability Guideline 1, WP:NBOOK

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.
  1. Lewis, James R. The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds. ISBN 978-0791423301.
  2. Valerian, Valdamar (1994). Matrix IV : The Equivideum (IV). Leading Edge Research. ISBN B008OJ2T5I. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  3. Greenfield, Allen. SECRET CIPHER of the UFOnauts. ISBN 978-1411667594.
  4. Mandelker, Scott (2000). From Elsewhere: Being E.T. in America. Citadel Press. ISBN 978-1559723046.
  5. Wilcock, David (2012). The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations Behind the 2012 Prophecies. Plume. ISBN 0-525-95204-7.
  6. Knight-Jadczyk, Laura. The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive. ISBN 978-1897244364.
  7. Koven, Jean-Claude (2004). Going Deeper. Prism House Press. ISBN 978-0972395458.
  8. Tyman, Stephen. A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution. ISBN 978-0761833567.
  9. Wicherink, Jan (2008). Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. Piramidions. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6.
  10. Cook, Richard C (2013). Return of the Aeons: The Planetary Spiritual Ascension. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1479364268.
  11. Gnosis (1995). The Inner Planes. A Journal of the Western Inner Traditions. Gnosis. Vol. 36. Gnosis.
  12. Beachy, Marcia. This Divine Classroom: Earth School and the Psychology of the Soul. ISBN 978-1418482824.
  13. Redfield, Dana. The ET-human link. ISBN 978-1571742056.
  14. Free, Wynn (2004). The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?. Frog Books. ISBN 978-1583940839.
  15. Schlemmer, Phyllis (1994). The Only Planet of Choice: Essential Briefings from Deep Space. Gateway Books. ISBN 1858600235.
  16. Bishop, Kitty. The Tao of Mermaids: Unlocking the Universal Code With the Angels and Mermaids. ISBN 978-1452500645.
  17. Mandelker, Scott. Universal Vision: Soul Evolution and the Cosmic Plan. ISBN 978-0970198501.

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.

  • 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)
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)
  1. Cite error: The named reference Cook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Cite error: The named reference Going Deeper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. Cite error: The named reference Souls was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Cite error: The named reference Cayce was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. WP:NBOOK
  6. "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. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
  7. Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.|Notability Guidelines
  8. 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. --from WP:NBOOK
Categories: