Deletion of The Law of One (Ra material) (3rd nomination)

Comment: Per {{u|Dennis Brown}}. It's far too soon for yet another AfD. The article is now little more than a stub based on the amount of material cut since it first appeared at AfD. The sourcing is sufficient to justify its continued existence per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and . At the second AfD, the article was kept after several of us found sufficient reliable sources to indicate notability. I understand from others' statements above that the deletion review was closed with an endorsement of the keep decision. It should also be noted that the nominator more than once radically truncated the article during the 2nd AfD, had done so during the AfD for the fork at The Law of One (this article's original title), and has now done so to this article again prior to the renomination, and that two other editors have also been radically shortening it; see discussion on the article talk page regarding the sources that were present in the article prior to the second AfD. The current state of the article is misleading in this respect; however, the criterion for keeping it is notability as indicated by what sources exist, not what sources are present in it. It remains notable under applicable guidelines for books
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:SNOW)