Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenphen 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 no consensus. A long debate presented both arguments for and against deletion. There is even a longer discussion on the talkpage. At the moment, the article has been toned down to the level where it is no longer an attack page (with possibility of turning into one again not really being a valid reason for deletion). We are not going to reach a consensus to delete as some arguments for keeping are rather convincing, but I am closing this as a no consensus. Tone 09:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Shenphen Rinpoche

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

What started out as a self-promotional article about the subject, that was unsourced and/or poorly sourced, has now devolved into an attack page primarily consisting of allegations and accusations of bad conduct. The lead of the article is also poorly sourced and contains dubious claims as well. Other than the allegations/accusations of bad conduct, the subject of the article doesn't meet WP:GNG Isaidnoway (talk)  07:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a textbook example of an attack page that must be deleted promptly. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, this article looks like an attack page and like a candidate for speedy deletion. JimRenge (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep as a "significant religious leader" per the PRC, delete the "charges" which read like a Sears catalog, and are, at a minimum, of absurd undue weight. Remove "claimed" and other weasel wording. Note that "Rinpoche" is not a "last name" by the way. The Slovenia allegations should have due weight only, and noted and cited as such. "Buddhism in Slovenia" is absolutely the wrong place for this, by the way. If the person is "notable" per guidelines, that it is an "attack page" (clearly it is one) does not mean we delete it. Collect (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Buddhism in Slovenia per WP:CRIME, contains some RS.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a notable religious figure, there's plenty of coverage of him in reliable sources. There are other issues with this page, it's been used as WP:PEACOCK it's been used as WP:ATTACK there are legal threats on the talk page. But none of those are grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The article contains clear elements of attack page (written in negative tone, slandering the subject) as well as misquoted sources and BLP issues which are being ignored. Balazs38 (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC) — Balazs38 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment It should be noted here that has disclosed a conflict of interest (it's a shared account used by students of Shenpen Rinpoche) on the article talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Collect, Simonm223, searching Google, I realized that there are at least two Shenphen Rinpoche. The Shenphen Rinpoche who acted as a residence teacher of the German Tibet Haus does not appear to be identical with the subject of this article (compare photos: ). Please cite your sources for the claim that he is notable or a "significant religious leader", WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not WP:WELLKNOWN. JimRenge (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not recheck sources, only tried top make the article compliant with Wikipedia policies. "Rinpoche" does appear to be a relatively high title within the Tibetan and other traditions (usually indication reincarnation of a great teacher). Vide "Bishop" in some Christian denominations. Collect (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Comparing photos to determine if they're the same person would definitely fall under WP:OR but if you have a reliable source suggesting that this Shenpen Rinpoche is actually somebody else using an assumed identity please feel free to share it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to say that Shenphen Rinpoche may be as specific as "Father Michael". I don`t see independent reliable sources that establish his (Shenphen Rinpoche/Ronan Chatellier) notability as a "religious leader" per WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any independent reliable sources with any significant coverage or sufficient depth either per WP:GNG that can establish he is a "significant" or "notable" religious leader. I also checked his article on the French Wiki hoping to find some independent reliable sources that could possibly be used in the English article, but the French version is tagged with notability issues as well. If those editors !voting keep could provide some sources, it would certainly help. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this section of Dr Alexander Berzin's book on Spiritual Teachers will help establish notability or otherwise: "Reincarnate Lamas: Tulkus and Rinpoches". There are numerous additional sources (references and so forth) on the subject on the WP article on Tulkus kindly indicated below by Freewasp, which may be helpful in this respect. It is said that there are only about 500 cases in existence, but no westerners apart from Chatellier who were first recognised as such by Chinese officials. -MacPraughan (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't help establish his notability as he is not mentioned at all in that book. Please see your talk page to discuss your pattern of editing on this article, as I don't want to derail this AfD discussion. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)  19:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Your claim that Shenpen Rinpoche was recognised by Chinese officials is wrong. It is wrong because no document exist from Chinese officials about his recognition (if it does, provide one). On the other hand, I have provided links to two recognition documents on the Talk page: the document of his recognition issued by Kharnang monastery in Tibet is signed by Kharnang Lamas (who are Tibetans), and the document of his recognition issued by Sera Jhe monastery in South India is signed by community of teachers and staff members of the monastery (again, Tibetans).


 * Your claim that he was recognized by Chinese officials seems to come from your comment on the Talk page where you wrote: "Recognition of tulkus ("Living Buddhas" in China) is very strictly regulated by the Chinese government and it is previously unknown in my experience that the government would ever approve a westerner being recognised in this way. It is also very unlikely that the local officials of the monastery would issue official recognition documents about Chatellier's recognition without the prior consent and approval of the Chinese authorities." Since you didn't provide any recognition related document signed by Chinese officials, your claim rests solely on what you deem likely or unlikely based on your subjective experience and understanding of the political situation in Tibet and China. To post such opinion as a fact goes against the Wikipedia's principle of No original research WP:NOR.


 * If this is not the right place for this comment, please direct me where I should post.


 * Comment In response to your (unsigned) comment above, addressed to myself and  I have checked the location carefully on the Google world map and it is unquestionable that Kharnang Monastery is situated in Sichuan Province of China, not in Tibet - which, in any case, is itself a part of China - and, therefore, the officials of that monastery can be truthfully said to be 'Chinese officials' - if not, then what? They are the people who signed the monastic recognition documents kindly provided by Chatellier himself and these documents are what I refer to. In other words, the documents provided to prove Chatellier's recognition are signed by Chinese officials, therefore, "he has been recognised by Chinese officials as ... etc.". It is undisputable, and there is no need for me to provide any additional proof. What is your difficulty in understanding this, and what exactly is the whole point of your argument? Please clarify, thanks. -MacPraughan (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Point is that you always try to show the subject in a negative light. Here for example it would be much more common to simply state that Shenpen Rinpoche was recognised by Kharnang Monastery in Tibet and Sera Jhe monastery in India, as is clear from the recognition documents. However in one of your first edits you wrote that Karnang is "an obscure monastery in a remote area of eastern Tibet," to minimize the importance of the monastery. In later edits you changed the rhetorics to "he may be the only case of a westerner being officially recognised as the incarnation of a Tibetan Buddhist lama in this way, by a monastery in China." Due to your persistent negative bias towards the subject, it is clear that this was done with the intention to cast doubt on validity and weight of the recognition.


 * Also, in the light of the Tibetan nation's struggle to survive the Chinese prosecution and uphold their cultural and religious way of life, it is simply bad taste to call Tibetan Lamas "Chinese officials". It flies in the face of everything that His Holiness the Dalai Lama and other teachers are trying to do for decades.Balazs38 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article grow into a hate page.... CalyptoAletheia (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC) — CalyptoAletheia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, Chatellier is the only known example of the recognition of the incarnation of a Tibetan lama who was a 'Rinpoche', 'tulku' or 'Living Buddha' in his previous life, in the body of a westerner, who was first officially recognised as this reincarnation by a monastery in China (Sichuan Province). His recognition was also subsequently confirmed by the Tibetan exile community at Sera Jhe Monastery in India. This is a unique case in the history of Tibetan Buddhism and its penetration of western society. This makes the subject notable - despite reports of his notoriety. It should therefore be kept - especially since it has been thoroughly pared down to just the acceptable essentials by Collect, making it compliant, as he says, with WP policies for BLP. -MacPraughan (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Despite a more neutral tone in the above comment, MacPraughan is the main editor of the new wave of edits which were written in negative or disparaging tone, removing all information which show good qualities of the subject, he sources tabloid newspapers, blogs etc. In short, his edits exhibit typical characterstics of the attack page. His negative bias towards the subject is obvious also in his comments on the talk page. Therefore, I still think it would be best to delete the page, so such attack edits will not reoccur in the future.Balazs38 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

*Keep. I agree with Simonm223's rationale, that he is a notable religious figure. In addition now that the peacock words and the overdone account of the subject's misdemeanours have been reduced to a neutral tone, we have a balanced and neutral account of the subject. For confirmation of the importance of his recognition as an incarnation of a tibetan master, see tulku. In his case it's all the more notable because as others have said, he is the only case of a westerner being recognized as a tulku by the Chinese authorities.Freewasp (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — Freewasp (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 'Comment Please note that 's pared-down version that was agreed by consensus has been rubbished overnight, and most of the remaining independently cited content has already been deleted. Not only that, but this has been replaced by flattery of the subject based on citations from his own writings or the the content of the website of his personal Buddhist group. -MacPraughan (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment if a major editor, who has been writting negatively and slandering against the subject in all languages of the article, is also actively engaged against the subject outside of Wikipedia - i.e. in "the real word", has this got any signficance for the editor's COI? And perhaps eventually also for the deletion of the article that he keeps rewritting in a negative manner? Thank you for the answer Isaidnoway  / GorillaWarfare Skywalker976 (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep; a notable religious leader in Slovenia, as sources testify. Other disputes about his recognition (for which there are very few or no reliable third-party sources) and allegations of criminal activity (for which there are plenty) belong to the article's talk page. — Yerpo Eh? 08:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Freewasp is a ✅ sock of MacPraughan. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck because the two users are husband and wife.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Please note that Shenphen Rinpoche hasn't been living in Slovenia since 2012 (i.e. since more than 6 years ago) nor did he come to Slovenia in this period. And no articles from other countries. Hence difficult to argue in favour of notability. Skywalker976 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC) — Skywalker976 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I disproved this assertion on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that the person must have sustained news coverage until the time of the AfD discussion. Also note that has revealed CoI, so his !vote shouldn't count. — Yerpo Eh? 16:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Given all the debate here and elsewhere, it seems that it should come to some sort of epilogue. This article doesn't bring any additional value. Even more, during the recent weeks it was turned into a canvass for throwing dirt for whatever reason and this was somehow justified by formally referring to any of the tabloid articles (regarding the tabloid nature of the articles I answered here: Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche). The assertion that the the subject is notable represents one more step in the same direction - a hidden plea to let this canvass stay, so that more dirt can be eventually thrown at the subject.

As far as I can see, there is a serious possibility that MacPraughan (or any of his sockpuppets) and perhaps also Yerpo will repeat the whole process of negative re-editing. This pattern of negative re-editing (in some cases even obsessive) does not appear neutral. I declared a connection, because this is transparent, but it is not only something that supposedly discredits me - it also means that I have some first hand knowledge about the situation - i.e. I am not only speaking based on what I received from dubious sources. On the other hand, it was proven that MacPraughan abused his sockpuppet in order to re-write the article in a negative manner and has not declared any COI (not to mention the biased language that he continuously uses etc.) It therefore shows that people can be biased for various reasons, perhaps because an image of a person irritates them, or because they don't like religion or specifically Buddhism, or because they have some personal issues etc., although they might not have a direct connection with the subject of the article.

As mentioned numerous times Shenpen Rinpoche has an empty criminal record both in France and Slovenia. Legal as well as Wikipedia standards demand that he is treated as innocent. He was checked in detail by the French Ministry of Interior and has 4 children under his care. Please note, that turning Wikipedia in a tabloid based attack page is not just a Wikipedia thing. It has serioius impact also for life outside of Wikipedia. People and children can be hurt. So, there is quite a responsibilty involved. As far as I understand Wikipedia rules, it is not obligatory to follow the votes on deletion, but any admin can delete the article. Please do it and stop the mess that was already created, before more damage is done and more people are hurt. Thank You.Skywalker976 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin or administrator on Wikipedia, could you please strike out that passage in your comment. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Apologies.Skywalker976 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and Wikipedia is not censored. I do distance myself from MacPraughan's activity and do not want to turn the article into an attack page. I just want to keep it neutral and comprehensive. — Yerpo Eh? 09:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The article as it stands is no longer an attack page. Discounting those arguments to delete, there is no clear consensus here, because much of the discussion is off-topic. Substantive analysis of any available sources would be helpful in determining consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - upon review of the sources, they don't seem to be reliable. Fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I stick with my previous delete vote, for the following reasons: 1. the subject is not well known WP:GNG. In Slovenia there are some negative articles about the subject, but the style of most of these articles (containing a lot of weasel words, false claims, sensationalistic language...) resemble much more that of tabloids than serious newspaper articles. Moreover, one can see that articles from different newspapers all come from one main media, i.e. there is basically one source, and others just copy/pasted the original article. Thus, the coverage of high quality and reliable sources is low. 2. I agree with Vanamonde that presently the article is not an attack page. However, as is clear from the Talk Page of the article, some users have a strong negative bias towards the subject and will therefore sooner or later decide to again rewrite (either themselves or via sockpuppets which already happened and was discovered on this article) the article in a negative and disparaging tone, including all sorts of accusations and gossips, referencing the sources in a foreign language which they admit they don't understand. Thus very likely this page will become an Attack page again. And then the whole cycle will repeat again: editing, reverting, endless debates, discussions about deletion etc. A lot of work and a loss of time to do all this for a subject about whom even the attackers say is a "nonentity" and not notable enough to have an article on WP. Balazs38 (talk) 20:53, 14 September 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.