Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanat Kumara

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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanat Kumara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Me and XOReaster have looked on scholar, and there's just not enough academic sources writing about this topic to write a coherent article about it. The majority of sources on this article are primary sources by theosophical thinkers, like Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and Benjamin Creme, which isn't really a good basis to construct an article out of. I think that a very selective merge to the main Theosophy article might be worthwhile. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Spirituality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this article would benefit from having the Hindu and Buddhist sections expanded. That being said, the article's writing is cited throughout (with 47 footnotes), and these citations refer to the works of published authors.

This article presents some basic ideas about Sanat Kumar, from diverse primary sources. To believe that you could teach people about the foundation of ideas while erasing or denigrating primary sources seems naive. All critical theory is based, at its foundation, on primary sources, without which, it would collapse.

If you truly wanted to improve the article, you could do so, but all you can think of doing is denigrating, dissecting, deleting and destroying, while offering no cogent writing that enhances the article. Your desire to bury or censor the writing here (which spans the practical, the world of rituals, and the esoteric) seems to arise out of your own lack of familiarity with the subject, if not intolerance.

Sanat Kumara has been identified thousands of years ago, and is mentioned in the essential writings of Hindus, Buddhists and Theosophists alike. The existence of this being is considered highly important--among the religious and non-religious. (N.B. In contrast to the followers of distinctive religions, Theosophists synthesize religions of both the East and West, while focusing on ethics and methods of spiritual development).

Yet the subject matter remains largely unknown outside the East at this late date. (More recent notions refer to the idea of Gaia, which is equated with Prakriti, or the manifested, feminine aspect of the Universe: But the notion and identity of Gaia, which has become popularized in the West, is not synonymous to Sanat Kumar.)

You need not like this article but to erase or distort such ideas merely because they do not resonate with you, would be a loss for the many readers that would wish to learn from this article on a platform that is intended to benefit everyone. RayofLightning (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The current text is fundamentally and pervasively unencyclopedic, so there is a clear argument for WP:TNT. In addition, the paucity of reliable, independent, secondary sources that treat the topic in any depth makes the need for a dedicated article dubious at best. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. In a quick survey of scholarly literature about Sanat Kumara (as adopted and modified by theosophic and Theosophy-derived NRMs since Blavatsky and Bailey from the actual Sanatkumara in Hinduism) I have found that in theory it would be possible to produce a NPOV stub about Sanat Kumara with material combed from various independent secondary sources (such as Lukas Pokorny's articles about Creme's beliefs; see also the Brill's Handbook of UFO Religions). But then, no independent secondary source treats Sanat Kumara as a topic of its own, but just as a prominent element featured in the beliefs of of NRM authors from Bailey to Creme. Thus, you will have a handful of mentions that explain the concept of Sanat Kumara, but always in a wider context. That's not enough to pass WP:GNG. There is of course the possibility to elaborate on Sanat Kumara in some broader article (e.g. Alice Bailey), but nothing in the article Sanat Kumara is salvageable to be considered for merging into another article, due to the entirely unencyclopedic, in-universe presentation of the subject. –Austronesier (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is primarily based on non-independent primary sources, and is written from a specific POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliable sources and independent coverage. Also see my comment at WP:FTN [1] there are other articles similar to this one that should also be taken to afd. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or very limited merge. There is so much incomprehensible cruft here that I can't tell if there is anything worth saving. I suspect that the links to Hinduism and Buddhism are tenuous, or even spurious, although the German language article might be worth looking at to see if helps demonstrate anything real. If there is anything in it then that can be merged to other appropriate articles, if not already covered, but the bulk of this article about a non-notable concept in Theosophy and that needs to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.