Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sankara Bhagavadpada (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sankara Bhagavadpada
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Provided sources are not reliable, I was unable to find anything more reliable online. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. signed,Rosguill talk 20:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - most, if not all, of the sources seem to be published by Sankara himself; therefore not reliable or independent Spiderone  09:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all the resources are self published, please explain where you have doubt.NANExcella (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , while hosted on a university website, does not appear to have ever actually been professionally published
 * This article is completely independent reliable resource published on an university website and authored by Dr. Vasudha Narayanan. I think this is the best citation for the article. NANExcella (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * is partially written by the subject
 * The book is completely written by author 'Robert Chamberlain March'. This is not a self-published resource. NANExcella (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It literally says "by Sri Sankara Bhagavadpapa" at the beginning of the chapter that this link goes to. signed,Rosguill talk 14:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * is on Scribd, not exactly a reliable source
 * Being on scribd, doen't mean that 'it is not a reliable resource'. You must judge the article by reading and its author 'Altair Meier H'. The article is reliable and independent. NANExcella (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * is a database entry, which is not in-depth, and also appears to be written by the subject (it's in first person).
 * Absolutely not written by the subject the text is written by parliamentofreligions.org
 * appears to be a faith-healing website, hardly a reliable source (and arguably not independent either)
 * Definitely an independent & reliable resource written by 'Makarand Paranjape'. NANExcella (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * is a non-independent bio on an astrology website.
 * Agreed it is a biography article but published by hinduworldastrology.net
 * deserves no comment
 * Agreed, this is not a good resource.
 * is another database entry
 * OK
 * appears to be a blog of unclear reliability and editorial practices, affiliated with an institute that does not to appear to be notable in its own right. Nevertheless, it is possibly the best source attached to this article.
 * Yes, it is one of the best resources in the article. 'religion.info' is definitely a good and notable website. And the article is reliable independent of the subject written by RAMESH AVADHANI.
 * is another faith-healing website
 * This is an article which is published on an independent website 'healingacademy.org' and it shows the connection between 'Prof. V. K. Choudhry' and the 'Sankara Bhagavadpada'. It is a reliable independent resource.
 * is not in-depth or reliable
 * Agreed, it is not in-depth resource but it is a reliable and independent from the subject.
 * is another database
 * OK, it is again a biography but published on a reliable website.
 * is a book by the subject
 * Completely Agreed with you. This is a book written by the subject but you must check this resource where it used in the article. It is clearly seeing under the Bibliography section and it is a proof that subject wrote this book. NANExcella (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * is another book by the subject
 * My same comment as above. This is a book written by the subject but you must check this resource where it used in the article. It is clearly seeing under the Bibliography section and it is a proof that subject wrote this book.
 * This leaves "AKHTAR, SHAMEEM (7 May 1997). "The Kalki Craze with Shankara Bhagvadpada". Outlook: 18.", an article which returned one result when I searched for its name on the internet...the result wasa wikipedia link-checker.
 * Definitely a reliable independent resource published on a notable news website 'Outlook'. Yes, it is also published on website.
 * All in all, I see no evidence that any of these sources are reliable or independent. signed,Rosguill talk 14:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you check independently and in depth you may find many reliable independent citations. And what would you say about two tv interviews one is conducted by 'Aleka Vial' and other is taken by 'Marcos Whoortman'? NANExcella (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I just check references used in the article, Not all the citations are self published. Reference could be improve instead of deleting the article. The subject passes the notability.JPL549 (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comment from blocked sockpuppet per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - content is highly promotional. Deb (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My dear friend Deb, Can you please explain which part of the article you feel promotional? And what is the promotional object? NANExcella (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - This article is from a reliable source.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The subject is completely notable and having enough reliable and independent resources such as msuweb.montclair.edu, parliamentofreligions.org, religion.info, Outlook India, Interview with Marcos Whoortman in 2013 and a science debate with Dan Barker.NANExcella (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no independent, reliable sources that mention the subject in depth. There is practically no mention of him at all in mainstream sources. He does not meet GNG.
 * Dr. Vasudha Narayanan appears to be well qualified, but no..this piece of writing has not gone through any academic review; its from an unnoficial collection of writings that may be of general interest to scholars- not to mention that it barely references the subject at all anyway, as its solely about Kalki Bhagavan.
 * "Sankara Bhagavatpada had done his doctoral work in nuclear engineering in Germany. After becoming Kalki Bhagavan's disciple, he decided to work full time in spreading the message of his Lord." is all that it says. It is only a passing mention, and in no way in depth.
 * This book is clearly self published by Robert March (see the google books "about" and the back of the book) so has not gone through any sort of academic or editorial review. And yes, the subject did write that chapter, as clearly stated in the contents list of the book. Not RS, not Independent.
 * It was uploaded to Scribd by Altair Meier H, and authored by the subject. no idea where it came from, or if its actually been published anywhere or had any sort of editorial oversight. Could even be a copyvio- who knows what the original licence was. Not RS, Not independent.
 * This is clearly written by the subject, ergo the first person usage. While staff bios may be written by Parliament.org, this bio is in the members section; members sign up and write their own profiles as part of the create an account procedure.
 * Faith healing website for a faith healing magazine, which also offers services to "find an expert" and promotes products- largely promotional,so not independent; no list of editors or anything that implies its a reliable source.
 * Not just any old astrology site..its run by the subject himself. Again, its a self written bio. Its the last thing from an independent source.
 * May be ok as regards RS..However its barely more than a passing mention with a single paragraph about the subject.
 * ' Again..not remotely independent! the company ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ "A Regd Non-Profit Public Charitable Foundation, established by Dr. Sankara Bhagavadpada" is on the homepage as one of the organizers of the conference!Curdle (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They sell his books; its another self penned/promotional bio. Not independent. Doesnt support notability
 * and Proof that the subject wrote two non notable books, published by what looks suspiciously like a self publishing company- and there are no book reviews or external mentions of these books written by the subject, so doesnt go to notability.
 * I checked, I couldnt seem to find anything else RS. Interviews are not usually seen as independent, and don't necessarily confer notability. Was the debate itself mentioned by any reliable sources? Were the interviews? What TV station did they take place on? Do you have further information or links to them? Curdle (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Curdle fails WP:GNG.Please note many references refer to Kalki Bhagavan is a different person that refers to Sri Bhagavan who is a different person.There are no independent, reliable sources that mention the subject in depth. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2018 (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.