Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spirituality

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Spirituality and related articles. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Spirituality|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Spirituality and related articles. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spirituality/archive

watch

Spirituality deletion

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. I note the 'merge' !vote right at the bottom, but have elected not to go with that as an ATD as there was significant concern expressed in other delete !votes about the material pretty much entirely being sourced to primary sources. If someone wants to work on a merge here and has the subject matter expertise, please flick me a note on my talk page and I'll undelete and redirect to preserve the history at that point. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Initiation (Theosophy)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Initiation (Theosophy)
• Articles for deletion/Initiation (Theosophy) (2nd nomination)

Initiation (Theosophy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article pulling almost exclusively from primary sources (i.e., religious texts); non-notable esoteric equivalent of in-universe or fancruft topic. Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: as the sourcing and the article scope violates WP:NPOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: No independent RS, article is a NPOV violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that an article on this subject was deleted as the result of a AfD in 2009. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete No independent sources could be found, I don't believe this meets the criteria for having an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete or limited merge? This is all massively overblown and pretty much impossible to read, never mind make any sense of. There are sources but I have no idea whether they convey any notability or support what is being said in the article. If there are any kernels of genuine and validly sourced information here then I guess that they can be merged, if not already covered elsewhere, but the vast bulk of this is incomprehensible cruft and has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for uncritical repetition of pseudoscientific meanderings like this: According to the Ancient Wisdom Teachings, death is merely a transition from one state of consciousness to another. While scientific materialists may deny the legitimacy of this view, physicists have long recognized that energy cannot be destroyed, even if it changes form. It is possible that an encyclopedic article on the topic could be written, but it has yet to be established that one is necessary; the default assumption is that concepts within Theosophy can be covered in the article Theosophy. I believe that WP:TNT applies: even if a stand-alone article can be justified, one would have to start over from scratch to write it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete (I was planning to nominate this myself). I couldn't find any academic sources specifically about this topic. We generally don't have articles about initiation into religious/spiritual groups anyway. The current article is almost entirely based on primary sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to suggest the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. If it were, WP:TNT would be advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Per lack of reliable sources. There are 6 or so other Theosophy articles that are similar to this one with no independent sources that may need deleting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources. The article has over 100 citations to theosophists Charles Webster Leadbeater, Alice Bailey, and Benjamin Creme. If secondary sources exist to write the article, it likely would need to be done from scratch without content like, "Sanat Kumara's "consciousness is of so extended a nature that it comprehends at once all the life on our globe. In his hands are the powers of cyclic destruction, for he wields Fohat (i.e. beams composed of "bubbles in space" used by Theosophical deities to materialize or dematerialize material objects) in its higher forms and can deal directly with cosmic forces outside our chain (i.e., outside our solar system)." Beings at this level demonstrate: 1) omniscience regarding events occurring on any singular planet; 2) the capacity to materialize objects; and 3) the ability to affect at a distance happenings in other nearby planetary systems." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Merge material supported by reliable sources to Religious initiation rites, which also covers Thelema and Wicca. Not sure why Theosophy isn't also mentioned there. Skyerise (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2024 (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.

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)

Sanat Kumara

Sanat Kumara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | 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)

• 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)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.

Miscellaneous

• Template:Religious text primary: TfD discussion