Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#The Law of One .28Ra material.29

{{Not a ballot}}

:{{DRV links|The Law of One (Ra material)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(Ra_material)|article=}}

The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated. I nominated the copy but it seems the result was mistakenly "keep." I highly encourage a review of the deletion discussions to see this article is properly reviewed, removed of its unreliable sources and deleted until reliable sources are found. Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A discussion with the closing admin was purposefully not done as I believe his judgement is very firm. The goal here is to receive a wider consensus for this article's reliability. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't make assumptions about me, it is rude. As I told you on my talk page, I generally avoid reviews of my actions in all things, as the community is capable of deciding if my actions were valid without my interference. If they have questions, they will ask. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_%28Ra_material%29&diff=prev&oldid=612871655 Logos5557] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_%28Ra_material%29&diff=prev&oldid=612826155 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)

• Overturn to delete. I disagree entirely with the admin's judgment of the consensus on this particular discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(Ra_material). It seems very clear that there is an almost complete lack of independent sources that would be necessary to source this article. As such, the article cannot be appropriately curated under current Wikipedia sourcing and editorial guidelines/policies. I see this argument outlined in many of the delete votes and that the closing admin didn't recognize this is at least a grave oversight. jps (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please delete this article! - This is truly terrible. It's terrible because it's sources are an assembly of pure fringy nonsense. There's not one scholarly article in the list of citations. One reference even links to the amazon.com shopping page. I do appreciate that it's hard to make articles about subjects in spiritualism because it seems to be a somewhat anti-academic movement. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - I get that people don't like the books, because they make a bunch of factual claims that are wrong. But that's really beside the point. The delete position relies on personal attacks, general statements of ill will, and assertions that if fails WP:N, without any detail - the latter argument would be okay if everyone just agreed, but when keep is making a case on specific sources, why they're useful for notability, and the delete position is just an assertion that it's not-notable without any details or arguments, the delete position is weaker. Bundled with the even-ish headcount, it's a consensus to keep (even if the article needs a fair bit of work). WilyD 12:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|WilyD}}: Please provide links (or at least quotes) to the supposed WP:IDLI arguments by the delete side, personal attacks that occurred by the delete side (I've done so for the keep site), and point out for us the reliable sources forming the basis for the article (which is the real crux of the delete argument instead of your strawman "they don't like it"). And note that WP:RS and WP:FRINGE do not say "just use anything that's on-topic," but that we need to use academic, unaffiliated, secondary sources to describe fringe topics -- so "The Tao of Mermaids" doesn't count. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:::DRV is not AfD round 2. In determining the consensus of a discussion, an admin cannot peer into the future for arguments that might one day be made. Beyond that, misrepresenting what I've written looks particularly bad when what I've written is right above it. WilyD 13:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

::::You said "people don't like the books, [...] But that's really beside the point" -- Unless you're making a completely irrelevant statement, how is that not an implication that the motivation of the delete side is really a case of WP:IDLI?

::::You said "The delete position relies on personal attacks" -- I asked for links to or quotes of such. That is not misrepresentation.

::::You said "the delete position is just an assertion that it's not-notable without any details or arguments" -- And yet multiple users on the delete side (not simply here but there), if actually read, repeatedly raised the problematic lack of reliable sources.

;:::Please explain how I've misrepresented what you've written, or where I discussed future arguments. And I'm still waiting on evidence for your claims of personal attacks, and evidence of any reliable sources in the article (which is something the deletion side has been bringing up from the get-go, but hasn't been properly addressed). Going for a head count while ignoring the policy and guideline based argument regarding RSs goes against WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::@Ian.thomson We are not discussing about a fringe theory -let's say- on electron that was inserted in electron article, so that "academic" sources are to be needed to justify inclusion. Notability criterion for books, whether fringe or not, does not need "academic" sources. Nevertheless, there is an academic source about the concepts covered in the law of one books: [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=matrix+of+mind Stephen Tyman A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution ISBN 978-0761833567]. Tyman uses the very same concepts in his book like "matrix of mind", "potentiator of mind" etc. as the law of one books. Actually, the book is about the archetypes discussed in law of one books; that means we have a very extensive coverage. Apart from that, I can't imagine how many wikipedia policies and guidelines were violated by "And I'm still waiting.." statement of yours. Logos5557 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::As the books deal with channeling extraterrestrials and deals with chakra energy, the subject is inherently fringe. Read Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability, you are absolutely wrong that fringe subjects don't need academic sources to demonstrate notability -- it must be discussed in sources "independent of their promulgators and popularizers." You can misrepresent that arbcom decision all you want, but it does not overturn WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, or WP:DUE, it only means that Wikipedia will not refuse to cover topics like Creation science or Alien abduction just because those claims have no veracity or legitimate evidence. Does Tyman actually discuss the Ra-focused Law of One stuff, or just "similar concepts"? Because "similar concepts" without overt discussion, direct citation, or explicit mention is WP:OR. Searching for [http://books.google.com/books?ei=dfalU_mxOcGgyASI54KYBQ&id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=A+fool%27s+phenomenology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22law+of+one%22 "law of one" produces no results]. And if there's only a single RS, it still only merits an entry in the List of modern channelled texts per WP:GNG and WP:DUE.

::::::And if you want to claim I'm violating policy, please cite the actual policy instead of just imagining such a policy. Claiming there are relevant policies without ever actually citing them only comes off as really bad wikilawyering. Asking a user to present evidence when they accuse others of misbehavior is not against site policy -- making claims about other users without evidence amounts to a personal attack.

::::::Maybe you should just stay out of this and let people who know anything about policy handle it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I can see the ones commenting here, who can see that your "interpretations" about the WP policies & guidelines are false and/or twisted; if you're let alone here, noone would be willing to clear the mess. May be I should emphasize one more time, for you to be able to understand that, the article is about the law of one books; therefore you should look at the notability criterion for books. As an example, you are mentioning widely known and notable cultural artifacts such as "extraterrestrials", "chakra energy" and "alien abduction", but focusing only on the fringe nature of them; it seems that you may never get the difference/nuance. Even if there isn't any single "academic" source on "chakra energy", it is a notable fringe cultural artifact, it's notability has already been established -long before you started editing in wikipedia-. I'm not misrepresenting that arbcom ruling; on the contrary it's quite obvious but you seem not ready to align yourself with it, yet. Tyman's book can't be seen as a "promulgator" or "popularizer"; who would pay 43$ for a "popularizer". If you are ready to accept it as an academic source, it would be weird to classify it as popularizer also. You better not count on "search" feature of google books, there is direct citation in intro and in references. Your request from another user to present evidences is not problematic, but your wording and tone is. Logos5557 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}

:Articles on other books covering fringe topics are held to the notability standards for fringe topics (see The Urantia Book). Nothing in the arbcom decision says that we hold all books on fringe topics to the standards for books instead of fringe topics. The third point, through the lens of WP:FRINGE, and in the light of the other parts of the ruling, means that we do cover fringe topics, their advocates, and their sources when there are reliable, secondary, and unaffiliated sources. ...Unless you want us to treat it the way we handle the Harry Potter books and mark it off as fiction.

:Um, the Chakra article cites Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism, (Cambridge); Bucknell and Stuart-Fox's Twilight Language (from a Routledge imprint); Apte's Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, (Motilal Banarsidass); Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, (Motilal Banarsidass); Monier-Williams's Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Motilal Banarsidass); Banerji'sTantra in Bengal, (Manohar)... It has several undeniably academic sources that directly address the topic. That's why the Chakra article isn't merely a section in the Yoga and Tantra articles. And what does the length of time an editor has been here matter? (If it does, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantis&diff=prev&oldid=81632704 I've been here] two years longer than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_White_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=253841608 you], for the record).

:And you misunderstand what I wrote: my citation of WP:FRINGE regarding "promulgators and popularizers" was about the majority of the sources in the article, stuff like like The Tao of Mermaids. My specific problem with Tyman is that you've yet to provide a quote (or even a citation that wouldn't result in a paper failing in any college course) indicating that it mentions the Law of One (avoiding WP:OR).

:The citation for Tyman is just "Tyman, Stephen. A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution" and the ISBN. No page numbers, no quotes. That's not direct at all. Why is it that you started off saying "Tyman uses the very same concepts in his book like "matrix of mind", "potentiator of mind" etc. as the law of one books" and are now avoiding directly answering my question about whether "Tyman actually discusses the Ra-focused Law of One stuff, or just "similar concepts"?" How is it not hypocritical that I'm to trust your tangential Google books search results, but neither of us are to trust my direct search in the same book? [http://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22law+of+one%22 Even when I use the .tr version you used, nothing comes up for "law of one"]. Heck, [http://books.google.com/books?ei=dfalU_mxOcGgyASI54KYBQ&id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=A+fool%27s+phenomenology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22ra+material%22 "ra material"] or even just [http://books.google.com/books?ei=dfalU_mxOcGgyASI54KYBQ&id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=A+fool%27s+phenomenology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=ra ra] fails to turn up anything either.

:That certain users refuse to present evidence for their claims is problematic. Any issues with my supposed tone (pretending there's an assumption of good faith by you toward me) are a result of no one honestly answering questions they need to answer if they don't want to retract statements. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::The mess is unfolding itself onto different levels and various layers; I'll try my best though. Take Oahspe: A New Bible, The Michael Teachings, Conversations with God, Cosmic Tradition as examples to fringe books (chanelled texts), which do not have any academic coverage/source. Arbcom ruling emphasizes "verifiability" and points to "cultural artifact" concept; and you are right that "it does not say that we hold all books on fringe topics to the standards for books instead of fringe topics" but WP:NBOOK does.

::We can't accept dictionaries as "academic". It would be safe to consider a publication as "academic" if 2 of the following 3 criterions are met: 1-Author is academic, 2-Subject is academic, 3- Publishing house is academic (university press). By presenting academic references "Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism" and "Banerji's Tantra in Bengal", you yourself proved that chakra is not a fringe but a "mainstream" topic in budhism. And you misunderstand what I wrote: I didn't imply the wikipedia editors' "seniority"; when you think about the age of "chakra" concept, you will get the point.

::[http://cola.siu.edu/philosophy/faculty-staff/faculty/tyman.php Tyman] is an academic in philosophy, and discusses Ra-focused law of one stuff in his book (not all of the stuff but the stuff related to archetypes). See these links: [http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?c=Tarot ra], [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22matrix+of+mind%22 tyman.matrix], [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22significator+of+mind%22 tyman.significator], [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22potentiator+of+mind%22 tyman.potentiator], [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22catalyst+of+mind%22 tyman.catalyst], [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22transformation+of+mind%22 tyman.transformation], [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22experience+of+mind%22 tyman.experience]. There is direct citation of law of one books and authors (elkins, rueckert, mccarthy) in intro and references. "Search" feature of google books do not bring all of the stuff for all books, see the reason [https://support.google.com/books/answer/43729?topic=9259&hl=en here]. If you still do not trust, you may purchase the book and see for yourself. I hope the case is now clear enough. Logos5557 (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::*Comment To address the question of whether Tyman's book is based on the Law of One material: in my view, it is. The terms and phrases like "matrix of the mind", "potentiator of mind", "significator of mind", etc. that were introduced by the Law of One material are really only used in that material and in works based on it. Example: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22significator+of+the+mind%22 General google search for significator of the mind]; [http://books.google.com/books?ei=dfalU_mxOcGgyASI54KYBQ&id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=A+fool%27s+phenomenology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=significator Search for significator within Tyman's book]. In addition to working with the same concepts, he uses similar language. Example from the Law of one: "There is no experience which is not purchased by effort of some kind, no act of service to self or others which does not bear a price, to the entity manifesting, commensurate with its purity." Tyman's version: "...purchased at price directly proportional to purity of polarity." Further, the book is dedicated to Don Elkins, Carla Rueckert, and Jim McCarty (the authors of the Law of One books). If you think about Tyman's position as a professor of philosophy at a U.S. state university you may understand why he doesn't want to come out and directly quote channeled aliens. Nonetheless, his book is an extended meditation on the concept of the Archetypical Mind as given in the Law of One books. Bathmiaios (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::::Does it cite or mention the books, though? And where so? If the argument is that the notability is for the books (which is the general argument for not fully applying WP:FRINGE's standards of notability), the books must be mentioned or else it's just as much OR as claiming a connection between the Tao Te Ching and the Emerald Tablet on the grounds of their shared dialectic monism using celestial and gender-based imagery. If we're going with the same ideas, then the article should be on the ideas rather than the books, which leaves no defense for the idea that we should not apply WP:FRINGE in full. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::Here is the "Archetypal Template" from Tyman's book: [http://imgur.com/Nvki0lD]. If you compare it to the [http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?c=Tarot Archetypal Mind discussions] in the Law of One material, you can see that it's not just similar ideas; Tyman's template derives directly from the Law of One material. To answer your question, though -- no, he didn't cite it. There are no citations in the book; it's a metaphysical meditation rather than a scholarly analysis. (Plus, there's the whole "channeled aliens" thing.) Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Tyman book is an example of the influence and, hence, the notability of the Law of One books. Bathmiaios (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete An article that has to put massive weight on unreliable sources (at nearly a 40 to 1 ratio) in order to be fleshed out as a stand alone article isn't ready for prime time. With only one or two independent sources available, a redirect to List of modern channelled texts may be warranted, but not a separate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• endorse I'd have gone with "NC" as I think there is a pretty good argument that this topic doesn't have the coverage we'd like on a fringe topic. But keep is quite reasonable as the keep arguments were basically "there are valid sources" and those trying to claim the sources didn't count toward WP:RS acknowledged there are some valid sources. Looking at the article, there may be a WP:NUKE argument for deletion, but... Hobit (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse A correct reading of the discussion, but No-consensus would have been equally appropriate. The closer commented quite correctly about some of the arguments used, including "The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better." The sources are appropriate ones for the subject, and adequately support the article. That they tend to come from the same general school of thought does not prevent them from being sufficiently independent. That the entire subject is inherently a little absurd is entirely besides the point.

:The arguments for overturn above amount to IDONTLIKEIT and nothing more. They should be ignored as contrary to policy. I too think this portional of the intellectual universe entirely disreputable, but WP covers such things also.

:The argument above that arbcom requires academic or even non-fringe sources for fringe subjects is not supported by the decision. such a statement cannot be found in the decision, and very rightly so. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• :It is pretty insulting, DGG, for you to claim "the arguments for overturn above amount to IDONTLIKEIT and nothing more". How do you get that out of my comment? jps (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::Re-reading, my view stands, at least for arguments such as the one I mentioned or that because it only has a few RSs it should be deleted. Policy, of course, is that some RSs are enough. If false rationales such as these are used, it can only be from prejudice against the topic. And resorting to rhetoric such as "blast it from orbit" does indicate either bias or over-involvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::You say you re-read, but you do not quote my comments or even obliquely reference them. Since your comment says, "the arguments for overturn amount to..." without qualification, you should be able to explain how my comment is doing what you are claiming. Or you could change your wording. jps (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::: @DGG. You read at least one discussion comment wrong. The user Yossarianpedia who wrote "The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better" made that comment and voted delete as a strange, WP:POINTY protest against what they believed were unfair attitudes towards using New Age and Occult sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYossarianpedia&diff=612795479&oldid=612767747]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete per Ian.thomson - Cwobeel (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment from closer - I usually try to avoid reviews of my actions out of respect for those reviewing, but felt dragged here by at least one comment. As closer, I have to put aside my personal feelings about the topic and article, and make a determination using only the arguments presented. To put blinders on, but not be blind to common sense. This is what I did. I can see why some say that NC or Keep would have been equally valid in this case, and I debated this for some time before ending up with a keep decision. It would have been easier to just say no consensus and move on, but in my mind it would have been a less accurate reading of the discussion. Much of the discussion was discounted due to incorrect assumptions and rationales that fall outside the boundaries of policy. Closing as "no consensus" shouldn't be done to avoid controversy, it should be done only when there really is no consensus on how policy applies in that case. If I were counting votes, I might have closed as NC, but I was weighing arguments and policy, which is why a Keep made sense. I will fully respect whatever the community decides, but I've read the discussion here and at this time, I have to stand behind my original assessment of the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• burn Sometimes delete just isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, yuck, what a horrid discussion to have to close. I'd have gone NC as well, but given the passion displayed by some editors there was no way this wasn't coming to DRV, no matter what the outcome. "Keep" seems reasonable given what the closing admin was given to work with. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
• Endorse. Like others, I'm putting my personal feelings about the subject itself aside in endorsing the close (as NC at the minimum, which defaults as keep). The "Law of One" itself is clearly a steaming pile of woo-woo bilge, but if woo-woo bilge gets sufficient attention from reliable sources then Wikipedia gets to cover it, and an article *about* it is fine. The article as it stands is badly written, but I think there were good enough arguments in the AfD that there are at least a couple of decent sources to support an article. Having said all that, the article badly needs to be improved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

:: This though is woo-woo bilge, written about by more woo-woo bilge and supported by supposed RS that are themselves no better than woo-woo bilge. There's just no foundation to it. Did anyone, who is not themselves as mad as a box of frogs, pay it the slightest heed more than "Generalised crazy stuff exists". We don't even have a good sane critique of "Ra as a recurrent theme within woo-woo bilge" or similar meta-analysis. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete; not because the subject is a torrent of bilge (although it is), but because we lack coverage by independent sources that allow us to present it neutrally. This is a common problem where WP:FRINGE beliefs intersect with low notability, and such pages generally get deleted. We have articles on plenty of other hoaxes and fantasies - where they are notable enough that we have independent sources, allowing us to present a mainstream view, rather than presenting the beliefs at face value, without context. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse; as per several of my comments above. Logos5557 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete per taking into account arguments made in these past deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity). This is just forked copy of something that has been deleted before. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Point of information. This is the original article, not a fork. That makes it all the more important not to decide based on the other deletion discussions, which would amount to the inverse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This deletion discussion referenced the notability of the topic of this article - not of derived articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• The version that was in place when the deletion discussion was closed is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Law_of_One_%28Ra_material%29&oldid=613560472 here]. Two or more editors have now deleted large amounts of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Deletion in Wikipedia is based on consensus, all of it, so these old discussions that were building consensus are very relevant and must not be omitted here. I haven't analyzed in detail, how exactly we got in current situation, but had this version of the "Ra-cluster" of new-age pages been included in one of the earlier nominations, it would very likely be gone by now. It seems that this avoided CSD G4 by technicality only, or avoided deletion by error made by nominator and DRV does not usually give much weight on technicalities. "referenced the notability of the topic of this article - not of derived articles"; If the whole concept cannot be verified from independent reliable sources, what difference there is left between this article and its content forks? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 10:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• In that case, it's probably worth pointing out the previous [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One no consensus afd], as well as the fact that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_%282nd_nomination%29 afd for the deleted fork] was based on a heavily pruned version of the article, which the closing admin recognized belatedly. Bathmiaios (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly disagree. In general, the old discussions have little to do with a current discussion. The article may not be the same, it may have been deleted and completely rewritten or significantly changed since those discussion, or consensus may have changed. It is helpful to look at the old AFDs to see if there is some "silver bullet" policy based rationale that puts things into perspectives, but every vote at a prior AFD isn't automatically transferred to the next AFD. That would violate the concept of "consensus can change" and isn't supported by policy. With few exceptions, you don't get two bites of the apple unless you show up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Appropriate closes were keep or no consensus. Keep seems fine to me. It was not part of the closer's job to assess the validity of the article's references – the people taking part in the discussion were the right people to be doing that. Also, it is not our role at DRV to give opinions on the quality of the article or its references. Sometimes DRV endorses a close of keep but considers that the AFD discussion was so unsatisfactory that the matter ought to be reconsidered. In those cases the result is not overturned here but a new AFD discussion is held. In this case I do not think DRV should be requiring a further AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse as entirely within the closing admin's discretion. Based on the discussion at the AfD, keep and no consensus would have been entirely appropriate outcomes. If someone has a more cogent argument they may wish to renominate this at some point. This could have been relisted. As to other arguments being made here, it is important to keep in mind that DRV is not AfD round two. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Jacob Barnett|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett|article=}}

I see that the conclusion reached was delete, yet I can't see that any action was taken. Is this correct or should the page have been deleted? Also, I'm unsure if this page is the correct place to bring this issue; if not, apologies, please inform me of the appropriate location. Thanks! ChaseAm (talk)

:: Why do you think it should be deleted? All I can see is an AfD from 2011 and a recreation, with significant sourcing, in 2014. Given the subject matter, 3 years is a long time.

:: It's possible that this article should still be deleted, but you'd need a new, or at least recent, AfD to justify that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Ah, yes. I should have given the edit history a closer look; apologies for that. That being said, I believe the problem still resides in the article. Some legitimate points are made on the talk page, especially the section entitled "slang". It does not seem that any content significantly different has be brought about the page that gives credence to its current existence, especially given the guidelines drawn in the AfD. I may start a new AfD with these points. The response is much appreciated ChaseAm (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:Another AfD could be done, but there's nothing for DRV to do here. A lot of the DRV delete positions were based on the assertion that sources on him were flash in the pan human interest stories, which the current article's sources demonstrate is false. I would guess there was heavy canvassing? Either way, G4 is inapplicable, so we can't enforce that old, out-of-date, suspect judgement. If you think the article should be deleted, consider WP:AFD, but it's unclear how that would go. WilyD 08:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Close with no action: The requester here might wish to start a new AfD if he or she believes this article at present fails our inclusion criteria. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Eric Langill|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Langill|article=}}

Eric Langill is now a bullpen catcher of the New York Mets, which makes him notable. RekishiEJ (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• There is little doubt he meets the GNG (partly due to a DUI). However, are all assistant coaches on a professional baseball team considered notable? That's what a bullpen catcher is, and I've grave doubts that meets a SNG, but I've been wrong before. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse: the AfD close was correct given the situation at that time (back in 2007). A DRV is not needed to review the article now. I would endorse restoring the deleted article to draft space to allow RekishiEJ to craft and submit an article, however, if he or she believes Langill now meets WP:NBASEBALL. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|aReputation|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AReputation|article=}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art2edit (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 June 2014‎

• Could you provide sources that meet WP:RS and WP:N? Basically third-party coverage (newspaper, TV, books, etc.) that isn't a press release or based mostly on one. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• temp. restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• endorse In the article, only the Yahoo article feels like something other than a recycled PR piece. And that's not got enough information. Nothing reliable coming up on searches. I don't see any reason to overturn the AfD or the speedy at this time. Hobit (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Not notable and promotional, with unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, unless more and better sources can be found. The ones in the article look like marketing fluff to me and I'm somewhat dubious about their independence from the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
• Endorse as an appropriate reading of the consensus in 2013. G4 was appropriate as there was no substantial change to the article such as to demonstrate the requisite notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The company areputation has appearance in eminent, credible and reliable media sources which include Times of India, Business Standard, Financial Express, Indian Express, PTI News and several others which identifies the company “Notable” in the field of “Online Reputation Management”. Being aware of the wikipidea policies as well as its criteria WP:RS and WP:N regarding the reliable sources and notability respectively, the sources that have been cited are appropriate to the level that is desired in wikipedia.

Below mentioned are few more third party sources, one of which is PTI (largest news agency in India), to be considered for restoring the aReputation Wikipedia article:

http://www.ptinews.com/news/4844137_-Online-reputation-management--nbsp-to-nbsp-ebb-nbsp-web-rumours-.html

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130812/online-reputation-management-new-buzzword-indias-corpo

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/fixing-search-results-through-online-reputation-management/1226474/2

http://epaper.mydigitalfc.com/articledetailpage.aspx?id=596113# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art2edit (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|File:Fredcopeman.jpg|xfd_page=|article=Fred Copeman}}

The subject is an obscure NFC portrait for a political figure of the 1930s. This appears to be one of the many cases where a minor paperwork irregularity in the FUR has been used as an excuse to practice yet more deletionist bureaucracy rather than simply fixing whatever the issue was. I looked at this file recently, I didn't see an obvious issue with it. NFC portraits in biographies are not a complex case for FUR anyway.

Raising this with the deleting admin User_talk:TLSuda#File:Fredcopeman.jpg, I was given a fairly rapid brush-off. Apparently I should have seen the speedy deletion notice (assuming there was one) and fixed the problem then. Now that it's deleted, it's too late to change it. Yet another deletionist admin who sees finding an excuse to delete something as more important than working to improve the encyclopedia.

There is no reason why this image can't be restored and, even if it has to be written from scratch, the obvious FUR provided. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

:First off, Andy, you can stop slinging mud since that won't get you anywhere. You've been warned previously about personal attacks, you need to stop. Second, I find it very surprising that you notice the deletion immediately but did not see a deletion notice. Finally, you never asked me to restore the image for you, only accused and complained about what I didn't do. Had you asked, and told me what an acceptable FUR would be, I would have restored it with the FUR. Also, as you frequently find yourself complaining about me, you should know by now, that I have absolutely no problem with any admin undoing my action. There is no point in this DRV, except for you to attempt to make a fool of me. Good luck with that. I'd recommend you find any reasonable admin, give them an acceptable FUR (which it was completely missing) and it will be magically restored for you in less time than it took you to turn your complaining into a whiny DRV. TLSuda (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• If something's proposed for deletion based on an easily-fixable issue then DRV would expect any reasonable sysop to refuse to delete. If this really was easily-fixable then TLSuda owes Andy Dingley an apology. If it wasn't easily-fixable then Andy Dingley owes TLSuda an apology. Both of you need to dial down the attitude. It isn't TLSuda's job to fix the FUR, and it isn't Andy Dingley's job. It's everyone's job, whether or not they're a sysop. Could we see this "unacceptable" FUR please?—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• The image description page at the time of deletion was:

  {{di-disputed fair use rationale|date=11 June 2014|concern=Invalid FUR: the header mentions two articles, so it is not clear which one of them the FUR refers to.}}
  
  ==Summary Invergordon Mutiny Fred Copeman==
  This is one of the very few Fred Copeman images available. It appears as the standard image in all articles deriving from the following: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPcopeman.htm and http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9795
  
  The image is also used - very much larger - as part of the publicity blurb of his autobiography - published in London in 1948 - and is used full page within. The Wikipedia article is based on this book so use of the image is highly relevant. It seems to me that this photograph was intended for dessemination.
  
  See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 27#File:Fredcopeman.jpg for a bit more information on the copyright history.
  
  ==License==
  {{Non-free historic image|image has rationale=yes}}
  
  Copeman, Fred

  It's essentially unchanged from what it was at the time of the ffd; in particular, both articles were already linked in the section header. I can't imagine what else the tagger expected to be done. —Cryptic 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• For non-free content all of WP:NFCC must be met, including having this information in the FUR. The source and links to articles was there, but we expect different FURs for multiple articles as they will usually not have the same exact reason/purpose for use (WP:NFCC#8). There is no explaination as to how its not replaceable, (WP:NFCC#1) which is important given that the subject was an adult and served in the military pre-1923 (which there possibly would be a copyright free image somewhere). There is no information about minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) or about respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2). TLSuda (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Okay, so if I saw the FUR Cryptic has linked, I'd see that there had been a previous FfD which came to a consensus to "keep". I'd think "I know why an image of a bloke who died 31 years ago isn't replaceable." The pre-1923 copyright exemption business is true, but would lead to a picture of him when he was under 16. A school photograph in short trousers would probably be the best we could hope for, and I wouldn't see that as a viable substitute. I'd see the clear indication that this is a smaller, reduced resolution version of the image that satisfies our guidelines about minimal use and respect for commercial opportunities. I'm with Cryptic. Anyone concerned about the FUR could have completed it with five minutes' thought. I wouldn't normally expect a sysop to delete that.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• As it stands, an incomplete FUR is a reason to speedy delete with 7 days notice. Assuming the image was tagged for 7 days with subst:Dfu before deletion, the admin acted within the rules. If not, then we've got a real problem. In any case, I can't say that I'm in favor of such deletion when A) an admin 1 year ago apparently saw nothing wrong (see deletion log where it was reduced and replaced) and B) most of the issues needed in the FUR were already there. But fine, it's within the rules.

:At the moment we've mainly got a behavioral problem. A non-admin who acted like a jerk from the get-go and an admin who acted like a jerk in response. Apparently they have a history. Could you two please just do the right thing (get the image restored and write a FUR) without all the drama? And treat each other a bit more politely. Andy, would you please write a FUR and let TLSuda restore the image with said FUR? That's how this should have gone from the start. Sorry to rant, but you both are experienced enough that this shouldn't be happening. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn; fix rationale and restore. The overall policy for deletion of anything is that easily fixable things should be fixed. Recent practice with images has ignored it, but the general policy for deletion is the basic policy and nust be followed: we delete what cannot be kept, but only what cannot be kept. Doing things like this leads to the reckless loss of content. I don't usually work with image deletion because of the difficulty of masking headway against the people who would harm the WP by needlessly removing material that can conform to FUR policy, but it's time for the people who want a proper encyclopedia based on content, not wikilawering, to speak up against such practices. Anything which can be given a FUR that conforms to our FUR policy should be kept, and failure of one person to do it right should simply be fixed. NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• I largely agree with you, but I can understand someone not wanting to claim that "no free version can be found or is likely available" without doing some serious looking first. I'm not sure it's fair to expect a passing admin to do that. Otherwise I agree with everything you say. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:::*?? What question has yet been raised as to whether there is an alternative image available? The justification given for deletion was that the FUR paperwork was wrong. "the subject was an adult and served in the military pre-1923" is just inventing policy on the hoof to make excuses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

::::*If he'd have filled out the FUR, he'd need to claim no free image was available. I know I'm not good enough with image searches to be willing to make that claim without spending a fair bit of time on it... Hobit (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::* There already was a FUR, with a credible and AGF claim in it that there are not only no free images available but even that there are no other non-free images available. There has still been no challenge to this and the image was not deleted on the basis that there were any.

:::::: I could just as easily tag every non-free portrait FUR as "But there might be a free image, we just haven't found it yet" and then delete the lot. Although I can hear a few of the NFCR regulars salvating at the prospect already, we don't extend reasonable attention quite that far! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I didn't read the existing FUR as saying "I made a reasonable search and could find no free image". Out of curiosity, do we know who tagged this and when? A passing admin is taking a reasonable (though I'd say sub-optimal) action if deleting something tagged as a speedy that qualifies as a speedy (which is debatable, but let's go) even if he _suspects_ it's fixable. I'm assuming that was the situation. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: The function of administrators is to administrate, not to improve an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: Improving the encyclopaedia is everyone's job.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• The image wasn't even used in the second article, and hadn't been since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invergordon_Mutiny&diff=next&oldid=454424307 November 2011]. —Cryptic 14:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Request--could someone either do a temp restore (we all agree this is fair use, just needs a statement so I think that's a reasonable request) or cut-and-paste the history of this image (who created it the first time, where it was used, who and when it was tagged and when it was deleted. To some extent a fair bit of the DRV turns on those things. If the speedy wasn't there for 7 days that's a problem. I'd also like to know if the deleting admin is the one that tagged it. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:*I would be willing to do this, and as I've said before any admin can do this, with our without this discussion. My offer still stands if someone provides me a valid FUR (which could be done without the image being restored), drops a note on my talk page, I will drop whatever I am doing in real life and restore the image ASAP. If we restore it, even temporarily, and it never gets fixed, then we have an issue per policy, or it gets deleted again and we are back here for another discussion. There is a reason we put time limits on speedy noms, otherwise they would sit perpetually unfixed and in violation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::*Then could you please answer my questions? Who tagged it, when was it tagged and who created it? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

:::*{{noping|Roger Davies}} originally uploaded the file in April 2007 and {{noping|Delusion23}} uploaded the crop in February 2013. They are the two major contributors to the image history. {{noping|Stefan2}} tagged it for deletion this month. Until November 2011, it was used on Invergordon Mutiny and obviously Fred Copeman. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse as technically within the rules, but also lets just restore the image, fix the FUR, and be done with the drama? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
• Endorse All non-free files need valid FURs. That said, if someone provides a valid FUR, and the image otherwise satisfies WP:NFCC, then it can be restored. If a deletion rationale (e.g. no source, no licence or no FUR) can be invalidated by merely providing extra information, it is in my opinion enough to request undeletion at WP:REFUND, provided that the required information is provided in the undeletion request. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'll provide a FUR sometime in the next 50 hours. (Busy IRL at the moment and I want to do some searches before claiming no free equiv. exists). Hobit (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Hobit}} Just let me know and I will restore it for you. Talkpage emails me, so that's my fastest way to find out. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Restore and fix FUR: while the delete was consistent with policy, it's something that can be fixed easily enough, and someone seems willing to do so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)