Tmonome

Inclusion of A Course In Miracles

I disagree entirely with your summation of what made ACIM worthy of inclusion. Bearing in mind that I've had precisely nothing to do with the writing of that article and had in fact not even read it (although I'm aware of the book's existence) until you brought it up, I maintain that its inclusion is for the reasons which I stated initially and which cannot realistically be "boiled down" to the ones you suggest unless you choose to widen the scope of inclusion to epic proportions. As cases in point:

• commercial success (my criterion, derived from the article): ACIM is credited with 1.5 million sales worldwide in 15 languages. UR is currently 50 copies of a manuscript which cannot even be purchased yet. It is theoretically possible that UR could exceed ACIM's readership without ever being bought or sold (which would certainly make it notable), but it hasn't yet according to any research anyone has done.
• has been controversial (my criterion): The ACIM article makes mention of litigation and criticism of the text from a number of standpoints. UR has been involved in one court case, I'll grant you, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable without anything else attached. It's certainly within the realms of possibility that UR will be criticised from various quarters, and this will help to make it notable when it is eventually published.
• has integrated itself into popular culture (my criterion): This is hardly an empirical measure, by any means, but despite only a passing acquaintance with certain peripheral aspects of the New Age spirituality and so forth which ACIM and UR are connected to, I've heard of the former and not the latter (at least until I read the article on it). Moreover, the ACIM article talks about another person who's written books on the concepts advanced in ACIM, something which is not yet the case with UR. That said, years hence it may well be that "Unlock Reality" is something which more people are aware of, in which case it would pass that criterion.

To say that inclusion in an encyclopedia is governed by the rules "it exists" and "it is of interest" is a false claim on both grounds. There are any number of things which are of interest to someone or a group of people which are nominated for deletion here because they aren't notable. My father, for example, would argue that every Rolling Stones B-Side is of interest, and I'm sure there are a lot of others who'd agree. That doesn't necessarily mean that every Rolling Stones B-Side is automatically worthy of inclusion here. By itself, then, the claim that existence is enough for an article is also faulty, as neither of us (who most emphatically exist) are of the remotest encyclopedic value to the rest of the world unless and until we do something significant, whatever it may be.

What actually governs inclusion in at the very least this encyclopedia - and, I would strongly suggest, any other one - is notability. While this isn't a policy at the present moment, it's at the very least a useful starting point. Given what information we have so far (and here I mean information you've provided in the article and the AfD discussion as well as that provided by others), I can't see any of those criteria which UR satisfies.

If you want to reply to this, I would suggest that the best place is either here (I've watchlisted your Talk page, so I'll see it if you do) or on my Talk page. Anything dealing with criteria connected with the notability guideline I cited earlier should also find its way to the AfD discussion as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to make such a detailed reply. I am grateful for your time.

What I was saying was that your points confirmed an interest.

What we have here is an interesting situation. The internet makes it possible for people to join groups, sign petitions, set up websites and join in discussions, which has created modern day happenings like the Arctic Monkeys, who gathered a substantial following on Myspace for instance, but because it is difficult to confirm all the names on groups, it appears to me that the baby is being thrown out with the bath water, so to speak.

Can we not say a group has 3,000 recorded members, and understand some may be duplicate accounts? The majority of them won’t be, but because it is possible some might be, the impact of their gathering is negated completely.

You might take a newspaper mention as proof, but Newspapers are being sued for libel all the time, so how reliable are they?

So we must do what they do in court and apply a reasonable doubt test on some of these issues. Is it reasonable, while we know there are methods to do so, to assume that what we see about Unlock Reality has all been fabricated? Work out the hours? How many people would it take? Would you take on the task to dulicate it?

And the court case. Why would that be instigated, if there was no genuine interest in the book? This is a thing which is largely happening on the internet, and because the internet is not a secure as some would like, some feel it should not be credited with an entry in an internet encyclopaedia. Is there some irony there?

I look forward to seeing how this goes,as truthfully there is something happening here worthy of note and will be a shame if it is missed. The Truth is it does deserve a mention as there really is nothing like it nor has there ever been.

Once again, Thanks for your time.

all the best

Tmonome

To take the Artic Monkeys as an example, since you cited it, the band is worthy of inclusion here because they then released an album, toured extensively and were nominated for several awards (I can't recall offhand if they won any of them). Were they notable when they were only on MySpace? Almost certainly not. Herein lies the comparison to UR: If and when the book is published and widely read, it may well become notable enough for inclusion. Currently, the only stage it's reached is the "MySpace stage", if I may call it that.

Nobody is contending that the information is fake, at least nobody should be contending that. As I've said previously, though, there's a considerable gulf between what is true and exists and what is notable. It's possible, for example, to assemble a list of the favourite foods of all the monarchs of Europe. All verified, all incontrovertibly true. Not remotely notable information, though. The foreign policies of these monarchs, on the other hand, could very easily be notable. That's the situation that UR is currently in - it's an unpublished manuscript, albeit one with more interest in it than the average such. Unless and until it becomes more notable (which requires publication to start with), it isn't likely to be kept.

Regardless of the accuracy of the newspapers and so on, it's the way we do things here. I'm not qualified to defend the system, but merely to explain its existence. One key plank of the system, though, is that if something becomes notable later on, it's welcome to be re-created. When UR is published and starts to fulfil the proposed criteria at WP:BK, you'll be more than welcome to write the article again. Indeed, I'll help with polishing it up if you want. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The repeated use of the word astroturfing to describe the project is contending that the information is fake. From reading your own definitions of the word, this is clearly a derogatory term denoting a dishonest activity. I feel it would not be out of line for members to be made aware of the libellous nature of this term and I dn't feel an apology would be out of order.

What I feel makes this text notable now is that is has gone as far as it has in manuscript form. There is nothing which even comes close to this.

We could take a few original steps and confirm the books travels round the world, or rather than dismiss it altogether, take a neutral view of the internet activity for a moment, by seeing it as a fact that there is a huge amount about this which appears on the internet, which by its nature cannot be fully confirmed but also cannot be ignored, then we still have pictures with exact times and place of very notable people, the Dalai Lama and The Arch Bishop of Canterbury, considering the work, and a High Court Judge ruling.

I also feel that relying on official publication, gives a false impression of what notable actually is. Something has to be notable and exceptional first, before it is published. It does not magically become this when a publishing contract is signed.

I must confess I am not sure how you are connected here, but I must say I am grateful for your comments, which are a stark contrast to the dismissive partial negative attitude many others have shown. There is little courtesy, and I feel little assumption of my good faith.

I will copy a small part of this onto the discussion as I feel it answers a query there.

All the best

Tmonome

Part f what I see as being notable here is the fact that this text has gone as far as it has in manuscript form.

As far as the issue of "astroturfing" goes, not everyone is using that term. I for one have not and will not use it. If you want to talk about legal action, you're welcome to do that but through the official channels. If you're after an apology, then I would suggest that you get in contact with the users who are using the term and argue your case there. The average editor around here is a reasonable individual and will almost certainly be more than happy to apologise if they've stepped out of line.

Regarding the notability of the text in manuscript form, you may well be right in saying that nothing else has gone this far. The catch is, however, that there is only going to be severely limited proof that it has in fact gone that far. It is not without the realms of possibility for a canny PR type to make it seem that something has happened when in fact the facts are different. Not that I'm accusing you of that, merely pointing out that such a thing could happen. Imperfect as it may be to rely on sales figures, they do appear more reliable than posts on discussion fora.

Again, nobody's saying that the book doesn't exist. For that matter, I'm not sure that anyone's saying that at least one copy hasn't crossed a national border or been read by a notable individual. The fact that the Dalai Lama has read something, however, doesn't make it notable per the guidelines at WP:BK. If His Holiness were one of several millions who'd read it, however, things would be potentially different.

Finally, the assertion that something needs to be notable before publication is inaccurate. Things are not published "because they're notable". They're published in the hope that they'll generate a readership. Well, eventually some series can reach a sort of critical mass where a new book is automatically going to be notable (Harry Potter is probably the example par excellance, although the next thing Dan Brown writes would probably work the same way). The point remains, though, that the guideline criteria here suggest that a book does at least need to be published before it's sufficiently notable for inclusion. The object of the exercise being that, as a tertiary source, Wikipedia documents that which is already notable, rather than that which is in the process of becoming so.

As for where I come in, I'm just an editor here like you. I happen to have been around these parts for a couple of years and picked up a general idea of how things work. Since I'm sure you're acting in good faith, I'm working to help you understand what's going on here. Also, since I was the one originally involved in proposing the article for deletion, I feel a bit "responsible" towards the issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Many Thanks Royalguard for your fine work in editing the article.

Hello BigHaz Are you still watching this page. Hope so. You will note I have had some help in restructuring the page from Royalguard. Hopefully this will make it more acceptable all things considered.

I look forward to your comments.

all the best

Tmonome

AMA request

Hi Tmonome, I'm Royalguard11 from the AMA. I've accepted your case and I've got a few suggestions for you. You seem to be haveing trouble with a current AFD. Unfortunatly, some wikipedias are very set in their ways. The best corse of action would probably be not to argue on the afd page, but to improve the article! Try to clean it up a bit with the Mannual of Style, make it a little less of an ad (it looks a little ady right now). After you've tried to clean up ther article, announce it on the AFD page, and inform the nominator (User:BigHaz) that you have tried to clean up the article. The best way to rescue an article is by making it better, not by arguing.

If you have anymore questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page, my advocates desk, or by emailing me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article still got deleted My advice for now would be to wait for the book to be published, then request someone to undelete the article so it doesn't have to be re-written. If there is nothing else that you need from advocacy, I'd encourage you to fill in the followup in the AMA request. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't responded, so I'll consider this case closed. I'd encourage you to fill in the followup on the request page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)