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. It is preferable to not close an AfD with only three !votes in it, but a. the article is in an atrocious state (citing only a library holding and an Amazon link), and the references brought up in this AfD are little more than brief mentions in sources one cannot call reliable even if they weren't fringy. Drmies ( talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• PS: Here's a trout for me *slap* for not checking the history well enough, and a big fat one for User:Immanuel Thoughtmaker *SLAP*, for pruning too much and deleting the one single source, this book, that could have helped stave off deletion. As it is, though, it's only one, one single reliable discussion--not enough to make me overturn myself. Thoughtmaker: this pruning operation of yours verged on disruption. Please don't do that again this drastically during an AfD discussion. Drmies ( talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The Law of One

The Law of One (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not following Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Additionally, see WP:FRINGE. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Additional note: I will disclose that I like this book's ideas to varying degrees but the article as it stands is a very slanted, mystical interpretation of the book's content. This article is without any significant sources that are established and outside the loose inner-circle of new age spirituality. This article should return when it has notable academic and/or public recognition. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 23:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can't find any coverage in neutral or critical sources, even though it is mentioned in a lot of New Age books. Therefore it appears to violate WP:FRINGE and it's impossible to write a neutral article based on the existing sources. Possibly some reviews or press coverage exist from the time of publication; these might provide background and balance and allow keeping the article, but at the last AfD no such sources were provided. At the last AfD it was asserted that some citations from apparently New Age books were actually critical of this theory, but no evidence was provided, and no section on criticism or reception has been added to the article. The subject can be treated either as literature, in which case it needs reviews in publications able to perform literary criticism, or as fringe science, in which case it needs some analysis of the theories by mainstream thinkers. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 08:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Neutral Well, the subject/article is notable and there are reliable sources. Colapeninsula's arguments are nonsense and irrelevant of wikipedia policies and guidelines.. The main argument for deletion should have been "original research"; as there are lots of irrelevant and nonexistent deductions in the article, which counts as pure OR. The current state of the article is beyond control; it needs lots of efforts and nerves to edit towards a lean, concise and "formal" wikipedia article.. Logos5557 ( talk) 23:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Regardless of the policies at-hand, the article does indeed lack a professional structure which would be provided by neutral sources, if they existed. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

There is no such definition in wikipedia as "neutral sources".. Instead, there are "neutral point of view" ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral) and "reliable sources" ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) concepts in wikipedia.. By using "reliable sources", users should provide "neutral material" to the articles.. Reliable or not, sources can not provide any structure to a wikipedia article.. That responsibility is upon the shoulders of users.. For example, many users do not even understand what kind of "reliability" is meant by the phrase of "reliable sources".. Logos5557 ( talk) 19:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

It is expected, within policy, that sources are not questionable and are not simply based on personal opinions. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Using questionable sources for an article compromises the structure of an article. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, relies completely on following reliable sources. An article based on anything but reliable sources is not a valid Wikipedia article. See WP:OR. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 03:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Also see WP:SYNTH for providing structure for an article by contriving a point outside the context of a source. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You're just dancing around.. See my reply above one more time; you "synthesized" a "neutral source" out of nowhere, and now you are talking about something else irrelevant of your "miraculous synthesis".. If you do not want to defend your last position, that's understandable.. However, please do not just throw policies and guidelines -which no one argues against- to imply a point.. See WP:WL(clauses 2 & 4) and WP:GAMING.. Logos5557 ( talk) 11:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The term "neutral sources" is clearly and meaningfully synonymous with the stated policies. Sources should not be personal opinions. This discussion has been very enjoyable. Thank you. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Proposal Instead of deletion, the article can be reverted to the last stable, lean and "formal" edition/version, and protected. User yossarianpedia seems to be the main/original editor of the article. There are also some valuable contributions afterwards from other users as well. So, interested parties can discuss about the version to be reverted and protected. Logos5557 ( talk) 14:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Using what sources? -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I have done the essence of your proposal by removing all unreliable sources and the associated material in accordance to WP:FRINGE and general policy. We are left with a stub of an article without any content that doesn't rely on the primary text itself. I do not believe this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements as it stands. In fact, from the start, the article has never certifiably established its notability. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 22:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I would recommend references [1] ( end of page 191 and first 2 paragraphs on page 192), [2] ( page 53), [5] ( page 53), [7] ( page 188), [15] ( page 60) from previous deleted version of the article here. There might be additional reliable sources from the current version as well. Logos5557 ( talk) 11:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Coverage is not significant in the first source, "Souls of Distortion Awakening By Jan Wicherink", it is also an unreliable source under WP:FRINGE; The second, "Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits", may be reliable but the coverage is not significant enough to justify notability; The third is unquestionably a WP:FRINGE source and is not reliable no matter the amount of coverage; The fourth and fifth are of the same nature. None of these qualify. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Additionally, assuming all of these were reliable, there would not be enough material within all of them to create an article that is larger than a stub. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 20:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but your grasp of wikipedia policies and guidelines are quite weak, and I do not have sufficient motivation to argue about your incorrect judgements/comments.. Nevertheless, your motivation in editing and your efforts should be encouraged/applauded.. This article is not about a physics theory, in which a fringe/paranormal point of view is given undue weight than others.. If the subject is completely fringe, paranormal or new-age, as in this article, then WP:FRINGE do not fully apply.. Because WP:FRINGE mostly talks about the fragments of "point of view"s in an article, not standalone subjects.. Nobody is trying to make this article's subject as mainstream, it will be accepted/regarded as fringe for decades perhaps.. Therefore, nobody can/should expect a fringe subject to be covered in the sources other than fringe, because this is not going to happen.. The reliable sources I mentioned, are satisfactory for the purpose, that is to make the subject notable and qualified to have an article in wikipedia.. When these reliable sources are added to this stub article, then it meets wikipedia's requirements. The rest is to approach an admin to ask for a protection for the article, so that editing would be limited. Logos5557 ( talk) 23:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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.