Here we go again (wikipedia)

[yossarian]

Hey Guys!

I'm back for some more laughs!

So.... you can all thank Logos5557 (he still hasn't told me his Bring4th username) for saving the article. He had to argue with a dozen deletionist atheists and was lucky enough to have an admin rule on the page that... DUN DUN DUN...actually knows Wikipedia policy!

But here's the part that I think is hilarious: the closing admin DGG (who I've argued with before) actually cited my specious, tongue-in-cheek, joke of a delete argument!

I meant this as a joke to parody how ****ing stupid the atheist deleters are:

delete I vote to delete this article, because I'd rather that wikipedia was not the first hit on google when someone google's something. The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better. While this page has a tortured history and over 50 sources have been mentioned at various points showing that the series of book is notable, there is no point in trying to keep this topic on wikipedia because the admins don't even know their own rules. A prime example is Drmies who doesn't know the wikipedia definition of a reliable source or a notable book as per WP:NBOOK. In conclusion, DELETE this article. Yossarianpedia (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin took this comment at face value, ruled that deletion would be against policy, and kept the article. Nice. Maybe I should always argue the OPPOSITE of what I want! Reading this made me laugh for quite awhile.

Here's the issue with the current article: the title has (Ra Material) in brackets which creates a policy issue. It is harder to substantiate the Law of One as a concept than as a Series of Books. It is also harder to substantiate the First Book than it is to substantiate the series. Therefore the article should be on the series of books, and the series is called "The Law of One"

Putting (Ra Material) at the end of the title opens a vector for deleters to attack the basic category of the page. Is it about one book? A series? Or a New Age concept? They can then make policy arguments that are DIFFERENT from the ones that I have established over a year ago. Logos5557 successfully used the policy line and talking points I created a year ago to defend the article this time.

if you keep to the policy I laid out, the article conforms with wikipedia policy EASILY. But if you start to recategorize the page, change the title (as was done by someone not sure who) and so on the page shifts onto shakier ground.