Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ra (channeled entity)

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

Fails to satisfy criteria in WP:BK, merging with Don Elkins has been suggested but one editor is unwilling to do this. dougweller (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said that it is the article's creator that is unwilling to merge the article. dougweller (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As discussed in article's talk page [1] extensively, WP:BK can not apply here. I wonder, how much more can wikipedia's policies and guidelines be exploited in order to be able to delete this article. Logos5557 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and delete. The only way this topic has a chance of satisfying WP:N is as an article about a series of books. It's at most a borderline WP:BK case. (See article talk page for the detailed argument and my attempts to help the article creator establish notability.) We have found only one potentially usable source for an NPOV article, and that's not exactly mainstream: "With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channeling" by Arthur Hastings, who seems to be an open-minded scientist researching "channeling" in the same way that some people do serious parapsychology research. Unfortunately we don't even now whether there is non-trivial coverage of the topic in the book. (In the UK it's only available in the British Library.)

The article creator (Logos5557) is quite obviously not interested in making the article NPOV, and it seems that nobody else can be bothered to get the book, improve the article, and face the inevitable conflict with Logos5557 that will result. Therefore I would say that for all intents and purposes this fails WP:N. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I reread WP:N, and since it explicitly mentions Time Cube as an example of something notable, I now believe that while not satisfying the WP:BK requirements, the topic is probably notable enough. However, there seems to be no chance that somebody actually turns this into an NPOV article. It would require much more effort than it's worth, and so the only thing we can do is remove the absurd trivia section filled with pseudoscientific jargon. The remainder easily fits into Don Elkins. So the page should be merged. Since there is no need for the present title, it should also be deleted, rather than kept as a redirect. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Absurd trivia section filled with pseudoscientific jargon" is needed to describe the nature of Ra (channeled entity). "Absurd trivia section filled with pseudoscientific jargon" is needed to describe the nature of Ra (channeled entity) with the jargon used in channeled text. There is no need to insert extra words such as "claim", "allege", "purported" etc. into every item in that section (otherwise it would not be short, readable, etc.) because paranormal tag warns the reader efficiently that the content of the article is somewhat not scientific. That section satisfies NPOV. Regarding merge: Ra (channeled entity) is not the main/sole work of Don Elkins. It is the paranormal character which is claimed to have given answers to the questions raised by 3 different individuals, that is, Ra is a character of a collaborative work. It would not be any smart to merge all Dune related articles into Frank Herbert or merging Special relativity into Albert Einstein. Likewise, merge into Don Elkins is nonsense. Logos5557 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not NPOV to use pseudoscientific terminology without even so much as an attempt at explaining what it's supposed to mean: "space/time (incarnate) cycle", "time/space (disincarnate) cycle", "third-density", "no longer experiencing time", "octave" (WTF?), "seventh-density". --Hans Adler (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Density, as a word, has more than one usage. These seemingly pseudoscientific terminology are self-explanatory. Additional explanations would not be neutral and would be undue weighted. In the case that reader needs to understand what those supposed to mean, he/she can follow the external link #2 and search for the terms. Logos5557 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "These seemingly pseudoscientific terminology are self-explanatory." Is that so? Speaking of density, at least one of us is being unusually dense. I invite you to prove that it's me by telling me which octave is meant in "Their knowledge is limited to this octave […]", and why I should have known this. Is "this octave" the one between 440 Hz and 880 Hz? Or perhaps the one between C1 and C2? --Hans Adler (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see you becoming "denser" day by day as you read through pseudoscientific absurd trivia, naturally. You are simply correct in that octave itself is not so much self-explanatory. It should be "octave of densities", instead. You can find more "proofs" in here [2]. "There are 7 densities in the octave of existence which Ra share with us. Within each density there are seven sub-densities. Within each sub-density, are seven sub-sub-densities. Within each sub-sub-density, seven sub-sub-sub-densities and so on infinitely." as defined in channeled text. This quote can be of help as well: "Questioner: Are you saying then there are an infinite number of octaves of densities one through eight? Ra: I am Ra. We wish to establish that we are truly humble messengers of the Law of One. We can speak to you of our experiences and our understandings and teach/learn in limited ways. However, we cannot speak in firm knowledge of all the creations. We know only that they are infinite. We assume an infinite number of octaves. However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery." Logos5557 (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see you changed "this octave" to "current octave of densities", which makes it clear that "octave" in this context has nothing to do with octave. I am amazed that you still haven't removed the absurd misleading wiki link. I won't do it for you because the only thing I will do with this trivia section is remove it altogether once you have had another day or so to clean it up. Unfortunately it looks like you are not able to do that. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this may sound rude, but if it weren't for the references that show this isn't a hoax, someone might delete it as gibberish. The article has become worse in the last few days. dougweller (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by this statement exactly: "if it weren't for the references that show this isn't a hoax"? I understand the article can't be deleted as gibberish since it has references that show it isn't a hoax. What do you suggest to make it better? Logos5557 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A basic google books search shows multiple titles that are not published by the Lifelines group which discuss the subject.

1. Channeling (Jon Klimo 1998) non-trivial. general audience.
2. Strange Weather (Andrew Ross 1991) non-trivial. general audience

This is a very wp:fringe subject, but it passes wp:n. Treating it like wp:fiction - while a very useful model for fringe articles, is somewhat offensive language, perhaps wp:fringe could develop its own guidelines. Davémon (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Contrary to Hans Adler's belief, articles that are not mainstream (I do not call fringe) can exist in wikipedia if they are notable. The criteria for notability is verifiability through secondary or third-party reliable sources (mainstream coverage is not needed). The material in this article is verifiable through secondary or third-party reliable sources (mainstream and not) as prooved in article's talk page.Logos5557 (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Davémon and Logos5557. Since multiple authors discuss this topic, a merge is not suitable and since such discussions mean it's notable deletion isn't either. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The lack of peer reviewed journal articles in the scientific press is not really an issue, but until there is significant critical (in the sense of critical thinking or literary criticism) material treating the topic in depth, there can be no basis for an article. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is not about the book, it is about the channeled entity. How can WP:BK be the reason for deletion for this article? All point of views including critics (significant or not) can be stated if there is any. Lack of other point of views or critical material (significant or not) does not violate WP:NPOV, as it states that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources should be represented fairly, and as far as possible without bias, by a neutral point of view, while writing articles for wikipedia". It does not state any course of action in case of non-existence of critical material. [3] and [4] draw attention to how these kind of articles should be treated. Even in the case that WP:BK criteria is the basis, again the article does not violate 1st criteria [5] as it is just a simple plot summary. Since it the article has not grow grown past a simple plot summary yet, significant critical material is not needed for its current state. Logos5557 (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec)Comment Please to be re-reading my comments above. My argument for deletion is based solely on the GNG, with no reference to Wikipedia:Notability (books) or any other topic-specific guideline. As I took some pains to state clearly and unambiguously, critical is being used in the sense of in-depth treatment by independent sources. If someone outside of Elkins et al. has taken the time and effort to examine the topic, then it is possible to write an article. As matters stand, however, the topic merits at most a sourced mention in selected other articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Please to be re-reading the criteria above (WP:BK) that is claimed to be failed to satisfy and [6]. In addition to these, re-read of GNG and [7] would be helpful as well. GNG does not refer to (or imply unambiguously) neither critical thinking nor literary criticism. If it were, there would be very few articles on wikipedia. Who would judge/test the existence of such qualities. Even paper encyclopedias have not such criteria. This seems as another overinterpretation of wikipedia guidelines and policies. The article in concern is a simple plot summary. The material is covered significantly in many reliable third-party sources, some of them being "mainstream"; that is people has taken the time and effort to examine the topic. Contrary to the claims in this discussion, mainstream coverage is not needed. Even placing paranormal tag is more than enough, the material is conveyed with a neutral style (i.e. with quotation marks, special words like "claim"). "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them": There is no undue weight on so called "fringe" or "not scientific" material because depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement are all limited for this article. The material is presented with an impartial tone and it does not obfuscate the description of the main views as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. There is no any opinion, theory or claim in the article, just facts. Logos5557 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Merge no significance outside this particular book. there is really no independent discussion of notability. There's difference in how we handle widely known cultural items from those in what amount to small esoteric groups. Put another way, not sufficiently notable. DGG (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient notability, no encyclopedic content to merge, little likelihood of "Ra (channeled entity)" as a search term, no utility as a redirect. — Athaenara ✉ 00:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is sufficient for this subject which is "not mainstream". Merge is nonsense in any case. There are may be thousands of article names little likelihood as a search term. This is not that kind of a name to judge as "little likelihood" easily. I just created the article from the wikilink in [8]. Logos5557 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient notability for inclusion. The Ra entity was channeled by Carla Rueckert making a merge with Don Elkins a bad idea. Secondary sources do exist. NoVomit (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.