08-25-2009, 06:43 AM
(08-24-2009, 03:10 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I don't know much about wikipedia, either. Does anybody on bring4th know the ins and outs of wikipedia policy decisions? Anybody know the arguments that would sway the skeptics?
I don't know wikipedia politics either. They have very wel written out policy pages. But in the end it's a small minority of editors that defines most of the decisions in wikipedia. It doesn't matter that they do not believe in Ra. They don't believe in little red riding hood either but she's got a page.
I think the biggest issue here is showing that there is a real world interest in Ra. It doesn't have to be more than a minority group it just has to be a real network.
They're literally saying the article may not achieve the "general notability guideline" and are literally asking you to show "reliable secundary sources".
Since there are thousands of people involved with the Law of One material and all it's spinoffs I'd show them a bunch of relevant sites and communities....
From the top of my head.
bring4th.org
divinecosmos
projectcamelot
lawofone.info
People add your sites?
They're literally saying "No one is interested in this Ra guy." so you should say "Well... These guys are.."...
I'm not sure if there should be a page on Ra myself. I'd expect a page on the Law of One as a broader phenomenon with Ra mentioned in it. The fact that Wikipedia is thinking about dropping this page is not very alarming to me. It's not as if it's the only source of information on the subject. And it's far from the best.