If you guys want this article to stay it needs more quotations and direct mentions of the 17 reliable sources.
This ruling has protected the article for now but it won't protect it forever.
Is there anyone here who has read the secondary sources and could write down, in the article, what those secondary sources say and could do it in a neutral analytic tone?
For instance, every part of the article should say something like:
Bill, Bartley, and Bob interpret the harvest in terms of a gradualism theory, while Kevin and Kelly interpret it abruptly. "The harvest will be gradual, I just know it! Kelly is on crack!" writes Bill in his popular 1999 book, "Hidden Secrets of UFO cults".
See what I'm saying? If the entire article is explicitly written in terms of what secondary sources say of The Law of One, then the article will survive deletion. Right now it barely survived because the body of the article was not written like this.
It would also help if someone went over the precise meaning of words in the notability sections in the talk pages, so that the next time someone decides to try and delete it they are confronted with solid policy-based arguments for why it shouldn't be deleted.
Wikipedia is basically a place where are a bunch of no-knowing amateurs with very large inferiority complexes go around trying to delete anything they can. Opposing them is a combination of idealistic people who want to help the world with knowledge, and many many large hordes of ideologues trying to push their ideology and destroy opposing ideologies. The dominant ideology by far is atheist scientism, to the point where these atheists actually believe they don't even HAVE an ideology. That is how poorly educated these religious zealots are. Opposing the atheists are very distinct groups: Muslims, Scientologists, Catholics, Fundamentalist Protestants. Each of these groups has staked out territory and each of them have "pocket admins" which are admins that secretly work in their interest but must appear to be neutral at all times.
Then, there are the corporations who use wikipedia for marketing and PR. They are very influential and often do their work just by hiring already well-known paid editors with good reputations. There are also the governments and political interests. They operate just like corporations except have more volunteer work.
Anyway if you want this article to survive it will need bolstering. To be strong, the secondary sources need to slap people in the face. You cannot allow any doubt that the secondary sources exist and that they meet the requirements for reliability and independence.
This ruling has protected the article for now but it won't protect it forever.
Is there anyone here who has read the secondary sources and could write down, in the article, what those secondary sources say and could do it in a neutral analytic tone?
For instance, every part of the article should say something like:
Bill, Bartley, and Bob interpret the harvest in terms of a gradualism theory, while Kevin and Kelly interpret it abruptly. "The harvest will be gradual, I just know it! Kelly is on crack!" writes Bill in his popular 1999 book, "Hidden Secrets of UFO cults".
See what I'm saying? If the entire article is explicitly written in terms of what secondary sources say of The Law of One, then the article will survive deletion. Right now it barely survived because the body of the article was not written like this.
It would also help if someone went over the precise meaning of words in the notability sections in the talk pages, so that the next time someone decides to try and delete it they are confronted with solid policy-based arguments for why it shouldn't be deleted.
Wikipedia is basically a place where are a bunch of no-knowing amateurs with very large inferiority complexes go around trying to delete anything they can. Opposing them is a combination of idealistic people who want to help the world with knowledge, and many many large hordes of ideologues trying to push their ideology and destroy opposing ideologies. The dominant ideology by far is atheist scientism, to the point where these atheists actually believe they don't even HAVE an ideology. That is how poorly educated these religious zealots are. Opposing the atheists are very distinct groups: Muslims, Scientologists, Catholics, Fundamentalist Protestants. Each of these groups has staked out territory and each of them have "pocket admins" which are admins that secretly work in their interest but must appear to be neutral at all times.
Then, there are the corporations who use wikipedia for marketing and PR. They are very influential and often do their work just by hiring already well-known paid editors with good reputations. There are also the governments and political interests. They operate just like corporations except have more volunteer work.
Anyway if you want this article to survive it will need bolstering. To be strong, the secondary sources need to slap people in the face. You cannot allow any doubt that the secondary sources exist and that they meet the requirements for reliability and independence.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)