Here we go again (wikipedia)

[Adonai One]

And I would prune it again as the sources are not the kind of material I wanted cited as fact in this world. Wikipedia can decide if it agrees.

---

From the deletion review:

Burn it with fire, if not nuke the site from orbit - If it's notable as a result of being described in RELIABLE sources (academic journals, books from university presses, newspapers, not WP:FRINGE crap), then the article can be remade. But in it's current form? Not notable, not neutral, not reliable, at all. I could see a case for the Influence section being the basis for notability, except that it's WP:OR, making arguments from primary sources that the primary sources do not explicitly state or do not demonstrate is noteworthy, instead of going with secondary sources that directly support article content. The article is currently on par with the sort of mess that'd exist if we wrote the Christianity article citing only the Bible, www.demonbuster.com , The Two Babylons, Michelle Remembers, the writings of Charles Manson, and The Da Vinci Code. The article does not handle its material the way Christianity or 9/11 conspiracy theories handle theirs, it just takes for granted that any book must be a reliable source because it's published. The article is a collective brown stain on the drawers of every editor on this site.

And if someone does find RSs in that mess, that one has to scour the page to find them demonstrates major problems with undue weight.

I'm wondering why anyone bothered to listen to Logos5557 and Yossarianpedia after the personal attacks they made. There's also the claim that this part of an Arbcom decision justifies this article's inclusion. That arbcom ruling says that we shouldn't delete articles on fringe subjects just because they're fringe subjects, but it does not in any way overturn WP:FRINGE's requirement to cite reliable, academic, and unaffiliated secondary sources when discussing such topics (instead of more fringe material). Bringing up that Arbcom decision like that is not even a matter of 'letter of the law vs spirit of the law,' but taking an out of context comma and claiming it trumps the whole of policy.

I've added the page to my watchlist, and will be mass deleting and CN tagging large portions of it if this discussion ends without deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)