Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balagangadhara


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete By my count there are 12 votes to delete and 5 votes to keep, but three of those 5 keep votes are suspect. Even if I counted them all, there is better than a 2/3rds consensus to delete.--Scimitar parley 19:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Balagangadhara
''Relisting based upon slightly irregular closure. Delete. brenneman (t) (c) 03:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC) ''
 * Delete - Returning spam - user added this link for Dr. Balagangadhara to several religion and secular articles - advertises a web site that isn't even built yet. - T&#949;x &#964;  ur&#949;  19:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * List of articles edited to link to this advert:
 * 14:40, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Religious pluralism (→See also)
 * 14:36, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Comparative religion
 * 14:34, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Christianity and world religions (→See also)
 * 14:26, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularization
 * 14:18, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism (→The secular ethic)
 * 14:17, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism
 * 14:14, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism (→See also)
 * 14:01, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Balagangadhara
 * 13:59, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Major world religions
 * 13:57, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) List of religions


 * Delete spam. --Fire Star 19:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have to go with nonnotable. Maybe an article when there's some sort of notability shown (but even then most of the links that were added are just out of line), but until then keeping it is a bad idea and encourages spam. DreamGuy 21:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear Administrators,
 * It is true that the website is not complete, but nevertheless it does offer a good view of the Research Centre's activities (e.g. programme, research group, forum). Please tell me if the link to the Research Centre is a problem and I will delete it. Please inform me about the reason(s) why (often very discreet) links to the Balagangadhara-wikipage on wikipages/topics that Balagangadhara and the Centre extensively discuss in their research are considered spam.
 * Sincerely,
 * Jeroen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.83.4 (talk • contribs), at 20:21, 2005 September 28
 * Is this your website or are you associated with this website? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I am just an interested reader. Jeroen
 * Instead of saying whether it is spam or not (that is, one way of filtering articles in journals as well), Balagangadhara is the first scholar who has solved anomalies of existing theories of religion, not within the dominant understanding, but by putting forward a non adhoc hypothesis. As a student of philsophy of sciences, I urge those who wanted to delete as spam the information about this hypothesis, to challenge the hypothesis. Of course, there are many theories of religion whose background knowledge is "religion is cultural universal". Balangangadhara has challenged these background theoritical claims. However, deleting such information on wikipedia does not negate the heuristic power of that hypothesis.
 * Best, Victor Kavinsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.164.68 (talk • contribs), at 17:42, 2005 October 3
 * Keep - This article is 'different' because it questions some 'universal truths', but does that mean it is spam? It's dense, a lot of information in a concentrated way, difficult to understand from the first time. But it seems to be all true when you think about it. Give it a chance and read it again. TV 81.247.195.58 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep – don't see how non-notable he is. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an interesting and noteworthy topic. However, the article needs to be cleaned up to offer some more sources and more wikilinks added. - Sensor 03:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The question to answer is always the same: are there independent, reputable sources focused on the subject (ie. Dr. Balagangadhara) that can be used as a basis to write an encyclopedic article on him that abides by the article policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V? We cannot write an encyclopedic article without sources. Some newer guidelines, written with the intention of providing assistance, do the opposite—they have the requirement exactly the wrong way around. The question is not "has this person written a book or two?", it's "has anyone written a book on this person?" Or a newsreport? Or a magazine interview? Or a thesis? If someone has written stuff on him that has gone through the peer-review and fact-checking process that Wikipedia by its very nature cannot undertake on its own, then those works can be used as a basis for a WP article, and referenced at the end. If there are no such sources, the article cannot be written (without contravening WP:NOR and WP:V). Because he is an academic, there probably exist critiques of his work (I can see indications of this on his website); these can be used as sources for one view (his) in an article on Comparative religion, or Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions, or something similar. But I'm unable to see that there are works on him (ie. that catalogue his birth and childhood, family, education, influences, contributions, etc, for example). Delete (without prejudice to suitably sourced material being added to alternative articles such as those mentioned). enceph  alon  09:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete NN, per Encephalon - While well-argued and very interesting, the article describes a recently-proffered (and hence non-peer-reviewed and non-notable) sociological theory. If Dr. Balagangadhara's book garners attention in scientific circles, its theories will certainly be worth an article. But not as of now. Eaglizard 13:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research. Samboy 17:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per enceph  alon 's analysis.--Isotope23 18:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete echoing enceph  alon 's as always insightful analysis. Dottore So 20:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is not about Balagangadhara, but religious theory/ies. Moriori 20:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per enceph  alon . &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 02:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Encephalon's request to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, several secondary, scientific sources that discuss Balagangadhara's work have been referenced. - 213.224.83.4 08:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC) {note 213.224.83.4 has voted above as Jeroen.}


 * That was a very good effort, Jeroen. Thank you. However, I went through each, and they are all works which concern Balagangadhara's specialty—they are not works on him. They are excellent sources for
 * an article on the book The Heathen in His Blindness... (which, by the way, I urge you to write unless you are yourself Dr. Balagangadhara)
 * an article on the subject of Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions (which I'd encourage you to contribute to and expand)
 * However, the extreme paucity (I suspect non-existence) of articles or works on Balagangadhara as a person lead me to believe that the article Balagangadhara can only be non-encyclopedic (at least for now). The perfect indication of this of course is simply the current article on that page: it is entirely on the  subject  he teaches and researches, not on him. For examples of adequate autobiographical articles, see Ludwig Wittgenstein, or Ludwig van Beethoven. Notice how the articles describe the person—birth, early childhood, family, ancestry, life experiences, etc. They can do this because the subjects are well studied, as persons. I suspect it will be impossible to do this with Balagangadhara (for now, at any rate).
 * There are some Wikipedians who'd suggest that we can still create a WP:Stub at Balangangadhara. This is one possibility, but I think it is a poor choice because it does not maximise the available fund of knowledge that we have here. If it were up to me, this is what I'd urge: 1. Create an article at The Heathen in His Blindness.... A very good article can be written here, because of the wealth of commentary on the work. 2. Expand Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions; you could use much of the same material. It will not be sufficient for an exhaustive treatment, but a lot of it can be fleshed out. You can cross-reference the articles. 3. Create a redirect at S.N. Balangangadhara and point it to The Heathen in His Blindness.... 4. Delete the Balagangadhara page. I do not recommend a merge and redirect because this is actually a surname (right?) and I think a redirect with the full name is better. (Having an article with just the surname is in any case a violation of WP:MOS). This scheme maximises the benefit to readers interested in the person and the subject, as all available, verifiable information is placed in context. Regards enceph  alon  18:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete spam. sockpuppet fest. Xoloz 17:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree that his work has not been peer reviewed. 17:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note - This unsigned user, Bsault, has only edited the article and this AfD. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there. No one has suggested that his work has not been peer-reviewed. Clearly, it has. But peer-review of a person's proffesional work only is not a sufficient basis for a biographical account. enceph  alon  18:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Eaglizard said it is not peer reviewed; besides that, he says it is one of sociological theories. Sociological theories give social explanation as to why religon is cultural universal. Balagangadhara did not proffer such theory. His theory merely solves the existing anomalies of all theories of religion, one such anomaly is the theological and secular assumption that religion is a cultural universal. Bsault, 03:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How about asking about him on the Belgian noticeboard? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  19:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep The person in dispute is not a non-notable person; he is well known in religious studies, postcolonial, postmodern studies: however, he is not any of them, but he is a philosopher of science. Those who never heard of him can say his theories are not peer-reviewed, or that his theory is some other crackpot theory appearing on internet. If I dont know something, I dont go over to some delete-talk discussion and say delete. One can add biographical information of Balagangadhara, and link to it from the theory (create another link) he put forward. Dave 171.65.195.248 04:19, 17 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.