Here we go again (wikipedia)

[xise]

The titles and subject material of the majority of those books indicated opinions of a highly religious and personal nature, the definition of a questionable source.

That's how you determined the sources were unreliable? The title and subject matter?


Are you serious?

If in-line cited quotes provided, better analysis could have been done. With these not provided, it is the duty of the editor to assume the worst and remove the citation.

Is this Wikipedia's policy?


p.s. Based on your edit, it appears you are serious. That's kinda awesome in its own way (unless it is Wikipedia's policy). In any case, I have no preference either way as to whether the current full article is maintained or where it's a stub. If it's a stub, some people might stop looking but others might go directly to http://www.lawofone.info/ and start exploring, so both types of articles have their pros and cons imho.