Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyala Rinpoche


 * 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. The WP:V argument doesn't appear to have been successfully rebutted. T. Canens (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nyala Rinpoche

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * January 8 addition: "Changchub Dorje" or "Rigdzin Changchub Dorje" were mentioned as better search terms, so should be searched. -- do ncr  am  21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * January 8 addition: "Changchub Dorje" or "Rigdzin Changchub Dorje" were mentioned as better search terms, so should be searched. -- do ncr  am  21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete: fails GNG, for one thing. A Google search turned up mostly unreliable sites, pronunciation sites, wikia, etc. Little substantiated/substantiatable information. Does anyone believe he was 126 years old? Maybe I am a Philistine but ... Quis separabit? 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nyala Rinpoche, the Philistines by upon thee. Longevitydude (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean 1826? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC).
 * delete only ref is an in-bubble hagiography; fails WP:Golden rule Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I am finding it hard to verify the content. There is hardly anything in reliable sources - the best claims seem to be that the subject is a teacher of Namkhai Norbu. But notability is not inherited. The other interesting thing here seems to be the myth of longevity which I am unable to verify either - apart from blogs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why those books in references are not reliable? Have you read those? It's 19th century case. How do you verify 19th century biographies? What are the Tibetan reliable and verifiable 19th century sources? Hitro  talk  20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- All above delete rationales are not valid when it comes to old and outdated topic like this. This article has references, they are books. It is a 19th century biography of a Tibetan origin. None of the participants in this discussion have read any of those books. Don't expect everything on Google searches. Hitro   talk  20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as searches are what we find for an acceptable and improvable article and since no one else has found and suggested this, there's no conceivable improvements, also there's nothing to suggest actual notability so that itself is an applicable deletion. From there, there's simply honestly nothing else. SwisterTwister   talk  04:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete C'mon. He was the teacher of someone notable and he was elderly. He might have been especially elderly but that far-fetched claim is not verifiable in the way we define verifiablity. Even if taken in the very best light, this sentence"'If Rinpoche were to have been born in 1826, as is claimed by some, he would have been far older than the oldest man ever documented" suggests pretty strongly that this subject fails our requirements for a claim of notability. David in DC (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google book results. Top 4 books in this search result are related to the subject. I can preview only this one. Complete preview is not available for me for other books. Hopefully someone can preview the others. Please note "Nyala Rinpoche" is just an honorific title in Tibetan language. It would be better to search for sources using "Changchub Dorje" or "Rigdzin Changchub Dorje". I can find multiple mentions in different websites in different languages. Some of the results may be related to 18th century Karmapa Lama with similar name, Changchub Dorje, 12th Karmapa Lama. I don't think it's wise to delete this article without analysing all the available references. And yes, I do agree that date of birth is definitely dubious. Hitro   talk  18:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So the name of the person this article is purportedly about does not appear in the article. And some of the sources may be about someone else.  And the longevity claim is dubious.  WP:NUKE WP:TNT applies here.  Maybe someone could write a legitimate article based on sources that aren't accessible online, but this is by no means that article. Deleting per the WP:NUKE WP:TNT essay imposes no prejudice against creating a new Changchub Dorje article but there's so much junk here that I think the best course is delete and let someone start afresh. David in DC (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to agree with David in DC on this one. Long time since we last talked, I bet DC will be very busy Friday. It's actually refreshing to know you're still on wikipedia cleaning up articles I used to get in trouble for. I'd invite Canadian Paula and DerbyCountyinNZ but that would be canvassing. I feel bad that we can't get their insight without breaking a rule. I guess our reasoning will have to do. Longevitydude (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Full name of the person is mentioned in the article. I managed to gather all the information about him only after reading this article, I was not aware of the subject before I came across this AfD. Sources can easily be distinguished between two people as they both have born in different centuries and are known for different things. Page move could be much better option than applying WP:TNT. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we can not reject reliable sources only because they are inaccessible. Hitro   talk  19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I found few more sources in google books., , , , . In these books, his name has been spelt as "Jangchub Dorje". Finally, I guess the subject is passing on WP:GNG, there are significant coverage available online in reliable sources. Hitro   talk  20:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Changchub Dorje is an important figure in the history of Dzogchen for many thousands of people around the world, and he is the root teacher of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, arguably the most renowned Dzogchen teacher alive today. Although Changchub Dorje is less well known than some other figures in the Dzogchen tradition generally, there are many spiritual teachers of even lesser provenance listed in Wikipedia. A shaky article, yes, but delete, no. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche was a professor in Italy for many decades and has produced dozens of books. In his published works, Norbu Rinpoche has recounted the history of Changchub Dorje. I would think these could serve as sources to put this article on firmer ground. Among the students of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche there are some highly trained scholars and translators. I will alert them and see if someone can be found who is intimately familiar with the sources. Ssarasvati (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Ssarasvati (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. It sounds like "delete" voters disbelieve the longevity, but if I am not mistaken the mythical longevity, whether true or not, adds to the notability of this topic.  We have many articles on completely mythical figures. To dispute this article as a valid topic the fact of the myth existing must be disputed, instead.  Which I think no one is disputing. -- do  ncr  am  23:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep (Striking keep to comment again below with new rationale after it was found that these two sources are about a different person with the same name. Cunard (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC) per the reliable sources found by . Here are two of the sources HitroMilanese found:  The book notes: "About nine or ten generations after Guru Padmasambhava left Tibet, there lived a famous master named Langlab Jangchub Dorje, who was called 'the phurba yogi.' At the time of this story, he had already reached a high realization of Vajrakilaya practice, but from the ordinary point of view he was just a regular layperson. He worked as a shepherd and was rather poor."  The book notes: "For example, there was a guru who was transmitting the Dzogchen instruction manual known as Supreme Wisdom (Yeshe Lama; Ye shes bla ma). Among his disciples was a yogin called Jangchub Dorje, who was receiving these instructions along with a few other yogis. They would listen to the teachings at night with only a single butter lamp burning, so the room was quite dark. After receiving teachings in the experiential manner over a period of one year, this yogi went off where he met a woman who said, 'Recently, you were receiving the teachings of the Yeshe Lama together with two or three yogis, and there was just one butter lamp burning. Are you reading the Yeshe Lama now?' The yogi was amazed. 'Who told you?' he asked. The woman replied, 'I came at night, transported upon the feather of a bird.' It was definitely true that she had been there, and this story illustrates the magical powers of the dakinis." Cunard (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are the defnitions of passing mentions, not "significant discussion" as required. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" here. The first source discusses how the subject was "a famous master", was called "the phurba yogi", worked as a shepherd, and was poor. The second source tells a story about the subject. While neither source is very substantial, I consider them detailed enough to be able to write a brief article about the subject. The second source was translated from Tibetan. Given the subject matter, the sources primarily will be in offline Tibetan sources which are difficult to obtain. The Tibetan sources are very likely to provide substantial coverage of the subject since one of the sources calls him "a famous master". Cunard (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog, Last week, when you voted delete, you were not able to come across any of these sources and you cited WP:42 which seemed genuine that time though it leads to confusion normally. I know these sources were unable to be searched in first and usual attempt. Now, when these sources are on table, you are just backing up your !vote by calling these sources "passing mention". None of those references are near to what we call passing mentions at AfDs. And please explain, how this one is just a passing mention. I guess, a solid delete rationale is required now to get rid of this article. Although, the topic is 19th century Tibetan biography, we are still able to find several English sources about the subject. That matters per Systemic bias. Hitro   talk  11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are brief mentions and also, to be frank, ridiculously in-bubble and hagiographic. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea about what you are expecting here as references, I assume a full length BBC documentary is the only source that can match your criteria. Hitro   talk  20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also concur that the sources are not significant and, when based for the specific subject, they're not convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment (i voted "Keep" above) Some confusion/alternatives about the name of this person is more reason to have an article for that to be sorted out properly for the world.  The disambiguating function is important. One Google book hit on "changchub dorje" is 2013 book "The Tibetan Book of the Dead: Awakening Upon Dying" which has significant coverage about them, although I am not sure it is this Nyala Rinpoche or not.  As a wikipedia reader, I would like for Wikipedia to provide the good function of sorting this stuff out.  There are 5 Google books links mentioned in one posting above which I am not going to evaluate myself.  There is Rigpawiki article on the person, which is a Wiki but is something, too.  The best outcome of this AFD would be for the one or two more informed participants to follow up with some development of this article.  By the way, I note one call for wp:TNT in comments above, which like any such call is a) an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the topic for Wikipedia and b) wp:disruptive, and IMO if it is the main argument of the AFD it should usually be followed by an immediate closure of AFD with Keep decision. -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. About the general fallacy of wp:TNT as an argument, see new essay wp:TNTTNT, which i was provoked into starting just now. :) -- do  ncr  am  01:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Scuse long post without word in bold... This is a biography of a Tibetan who was active in the early to mid twentieth century.  Internet searches by non-Tibetan speakers, using the Roman alphabet and google snippet view, are simply insufficient as a basis for a rational decision about this. Some of the arguments for deletion are silly and weird.  I don't recognise "in-bubble" as a reasonable or even intelligible criticism of this; all experts, in all subjects, are in-bubble for their specialist subject.  An encyclopaedia that disregards the specialists for being in-bubble ought to be called "Bizarropedia". Yes, okay, I'm a lifelong atheist and I'm deeply, trenchantly skeptical of religious sources, particularly insofar as they relate to claims of mystical powers; I think such claims require extraordinary evidence.  But that doesn't mean delete them.  An encyclopaedia is there to educate people, and there are good reasons to have articles on these claims and the people who make them (which is also why we have an article on bigfoot, for example).  Wikipedia isn't Snopes; but we can usefully shine a light on some of the rubbish people publish. The current version of the article is also silly and weird.  It contains claims that are clearly ludicrous.  I'll look you in the eye and tell you this bloke didn't live from 1826 to 1961 (let alone 1978!)  The current text can't be allowed to stand. Suggest closing as "no consensus" for the time being and taking it somewhere relevant like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet where you're likely to find someone who has access to print sources in Tibetan and the knowledge to read them.— S Marshall  T/C 11:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I bet he was really born in 1926, definitely not 1826. If this claim is notable then so is the claim that my cat, Picatso, is a painter. Longevitydude (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DeleteThat's right, the guy who didn't believe afds is voting delete in a longevity afd for whatever that says. Anyway, his age is disputed, and there are no exact dates known. It seems he's only notable for claiming to be an age that has never been proven. I don't know why he is even part of the longevity project, no source that had an idea when he was born and a 17 year dispute over when he died(1961-1978). How are the two supposed death dates that far apart? Also, he has made no real contributions as far as an encyclopedia goes. Longevitydude (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the article make no real claim of notability and is weakly sourced / unsourced. Sources presented at this AfD are passing mentions -- insufficient to build a balanced, NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Weakly sourced" how? This is not a company related article where you normally make third or fourth delete comment. Explain why those books are not considerable? Hitro   talk  17:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- The two books mentioned in the reference section of the article are authored by Namkhai Norbu. Both of them are available on Google books here and here. Search for "Changchub Dorje" within these books, you'll find substantial coverage about this person. I don't know whether all the participants have checked these books because in one of those books, it is mentioned that this person did live from 1826 to 1961. Hitro   talk  21:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment and analsysis of sources I'm sorry but the sources do not adequately verify the content. In some cases, the sources are not even about the subject but about a similarly named master. Let's have a look why the sources are problematic
 * Sources in the article
 * Norbu, Namkhai (1996). Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State. - . The author Namkhai Norbu is a disciple of the subject. We require reliable third party sources
 * Norbu, Namkhai (2000). The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen. As above
 * Gyelse Tsewang Gyurme The Treasury of Lives (website)-
 * The First Adzom Drukpa, Drodul Pawo Dorje The Treasury of Lives (website)
 * Sources by
 * Other sources by
 * Rather it is about the The sixth Dzogchen Rinpoche, Jigdral Changchub Dorje (1935-1959)
 * The subject is simply mentioned in passing as a teacher of Namkhai Norbu here.
 * See page 402
 * that the subject was a teacher of Namkhai Norbu
 * However, none of this is significant coverage. Out of 13 references, you can that a lot of them are simply not about the subject. Other are not third party sources or offer passing mentions. I stand by my delete vote. If reliable third party sources have not discussed the subject in detail, we should not be having an article on the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See page 402
 * that the subject was a teacher of Namkhai Norbu
 * However, none of this is significant coverage. Out of 13 references, you can that a lot of them are simply not about the subject. Other are not third party sources or offer passing mentions. I stand by my delete vote. If reliable third party sources have not discussed the subject in detail, we should not be having an article on the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * However, none of this is significant coverage. Out of 13 references, you can that a lot of them are simply not about the subject. Other are not third party sources or offer passing mentions. I stand by my delete vote. If reliable third party sources have not discussed the subject in detail, we should not be having an article on the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * However, none of this is significant coverage. Out of 13 references, you can that a lot of them are simply not about the subject. Other are not third party sources or offer passing mentions. I stand by my delete vote. If reliable third party sources have not discussed the subject in detail, we should not be having an article on the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A third relist is unusual, but more discussion seems appropriate in light of the late post from Lemongirl942 analyzing the sources. T. Canens (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think he passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG, I don't see how a book can be discounted because they asked someone close to the subject to fact check and credited them a such? If so, pretty much every book that talks about someone at length would have to be discounted because they would likely ask questions and fact check to someone close to the subject if they were or are at all reputable. For me this makes these sources better, not worse. There are a lot of delete votes here but none really cite many valid reasons for doing so. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The book was written by the subject's student, where he mentioned his teacher. However, that cannot be used as a third party source. And there is pretty much no other sources available. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me he didn't write any of them, as you said yourself he is just a contributor probably because he helped write about his former teacher. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- No notability and no reliable sources. CreativeMan1 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of reliable sources seems pretty well established. Glendoremus (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Well known Buddhist master who is better known as Changchub Dorje.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Well known Buddhist master"? How is the subject well known? Can you show some reliable third party sources? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -, I am quite busy for next few days so I won't be able to do an extensive research on your analysis for now, but I will definitely post my elaborated response here before 28th. However, I counter checked your comments on two of the sources.

Following is the extract from the first book "About nine or ten generations after Guru Padmasambhava left Tibet, there lived a famous master named Langlab Jangchub Dorje" Guru Padmasambhava lived in 8th century. You may check the sources presented in the article for verification. So how does "After 9 or 10 generations" lead us to 11th century (as interpreted by you)? Doesn't it point us to a master who lived in 18th or 19th century? Hitro  talk  11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is 11th century. See the sentence, "During the same time, there was a master named La Rotsawa Dorje Drak"...who it turns out lived in the 11th century. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V. The single source in this article does not verify its content and does not provide the nontrivial coverage of the subject from multiple sources required by WP:GNG, and Lemongirl942's analysis shows that other sources mentioned in this AfD are also suspect. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep with a recommendation to close with no consensus and a strong suggestion that work is needed to address the question of whether notability can be verified via his multiple names and to contact the relevant wikiprojects to do some more upgrades. We have one of those individuals where sourcing falls mostly pre-internet but post 1923 so source material is not easy to locate, and in particular for Tibet post-1949 due to the upheaval in that nation at the time.  This is a pretty good case of where a WP:HEY is needed by people knowledgable in the topic.   Montanabw (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy-based consensus to delete is clear. What exactly are these "pre-internet but post 1923" sources you mention? Please cite them.  Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Many thanks to for actually rolling up her sleeves and assessing the sources we have rather than posturing over ones that hypothetically may or may not exist. We simply cannot verify anything about this person and I don't think there is a realistic prospect of us doing so any time soon. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in The Tibetan Book of the Dead: Awakening Upon Dying and The Dalai Lama and the King Demon: Tracking a Triple Murder Mystery Through the Mists of Time. I agree with AlessandroTiandelli333's analysis that the sources are usable because "pretty much every book that talks about someone at length would have to be discounted because they would likely ask questions and fact check to someone close to the subject if they were or are at all reputable". Cunard (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt you read the source accurately here. If you actually did, you would realise that in "The Tibetan Book of the Dead: Awakening Upon Dying", - that too as a personal reflection. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is discussed in that seven-sentence paragraph. I consider the paragraph's telling a story about the subject to be nontrivial coverage of him. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was not my point. What I mentioned was that the entire introduction was written by Namkhai Norbu - who is the subject's student. This is not a third party source and cannot be used for GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. 's analysis of the sources shows that they are not reliable or independent (or even about the same person half the time!), and therefore cannot be used to support any claim of notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2017 (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.