(01-22-2013, 05:42 AM)yossarian Wrote: Looks like it's going to be deleted again. Some completely insane person linked to it, and the wikipedia admin who deleted that article is now deleting The Law of One article too.
The threshold for notability seems to be completely arbitrary, mostly based on whichever admin happens to be the one looking at the page. Some books are allowed to have pages despite having essentially no secondary sources and tiny readership--maybe a news article here or there. The Law of One has a massive readership and influence, but when it comes to stuff that is remotely spiritual, the admins jack up the threshold for notability to the point where most articles on wikipedia would be deleted should that threshold be consistently enforced.
The guy who has taken aim at the article now has been a wikipedia admin for 8 years. You can bet that he knows the way to lawyer to get anything that he wants.
Also, they've probably read this forum and so it doesn't help that, for instance, xise says this:
xise Wrote:The wikipedia page is our defacto public relations page
This is exactly the type of comment that sets off wikipedia admins.
If you guys want the article to survive we're going to have to add in a lot more critical commentary from as many sources as possible.
It's extremely disappointing to have all that work go to waste. I tried really hard to write a valuable wikipedia article that is up to wikipedia standards.
I didn't mean to imply anything by that comment, other than the fact that when people ask me about the Law of One (and a ton of people do), I just say to google it. Often people who know nothing other than the brief lines I tell them about the topic.
It would be sad if they didn't get a clear, clean cut wikipedia link explaining the basics.
And I totally agree with the principle that it needs to be a neutral view. Not spin. As basically a spiritual philosophy that espouses answers to a great many questions, and as one that fundamentally states that if the philosophy doesn't ring true then one should forget about it, it should be unbiased. I'm totally sorry if the public relations bit made it sound like a biased page in our favor. That is totally not what I want, and not what I think wikipedia is all about.
Regardless of my comments, looking over the page, it has a lot of notable secondary sources (though I'm no wikipedia expert). Hopefully it's in good shape on the merits.