Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wangchen 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   Article was deleted as copyvio Listed at WP:CP for over 7 days, communication sent to OTRS demonstrate that the source material wasn't created by the site identified by CorenSearchBot, its origin and hence its licensing status cannot be demonstrated at this time. Article has therefore been deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle defined in Wikipedia's Copyright Policy. OTRS volunteers can verify ticket ID 2010010910020646. Nothing precludes recreation with original language as the AfD issues haven't gathered consensus. MLauba (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wangchen Rinpoche

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:BIO. Sourcing is limited to unreliable websites and a book by Kalu Rinpoche; since it's by his teacher, it hardly counts as independent. He pulls up curiously few google books searches, but there we are - non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) He has some coverage in a book by an associate, but pulls up curiously few google, google books and google news sources. Seems to fail WP:BIO; coverage is on the borderline for significant, but certainly doesn't pass the test of "multiple" sources based on what I've found. Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert arbitration requested from Buddhism Project. Not only was Wangchen Rinpoche recognized as a tulku (reincarnated lama) by Kalu Rinpoche, one of the preeminent Tibetan Buddhists of the 20th century, but Wangchen Rinpoche is a lineage holder of Shangpa Kagyu, arguably the most exotic lineage in Tibetan Buddhism. In addition, Wangchen Rinpoche is known as a master of the Nyungne practice, and is the author of the definitive book on the subject. Sstovall19 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a rule I'm missing somehow, that if a book is written by a subject's teacher it's unreliable? Please link to the precise rule, or its page with a direct quote. Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  20:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unreliable, no; it's perfectly reliable as a verifiable source for verifying that information in an article is correct. However, sources used for determining notability are required to be independent of the subject; as WP:N says, independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject". Ironholds (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an impressive and completely insulting misquotation of the relevant policy. "#"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]" Is this how you plan to do it as an administrator? -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's quite insulting itself. What exactly is the problem, here? The work was produced by somebody affiliated with the subject. Note that the examples include the phrase "not limited to". Ironholds (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice the types of examples. Do you see anything about "works published by someone knowledgeable about the subject?" Biographies are written by people who know the subject, written by friends, teachers, acquaintances. The point of this policy is that they are not written by the subject or for the purpose of promoting the subject, not that biography is written by a complete stranger who never met the subject! -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  22:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Note, however that 1) it isn't a biography, 2) it only appears to mention Rinpoche briefly and 3) it's a single sources - 2 and 3 means that the article still fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you need to phrase the AfD appropriately and accurately and to reflect real policy reasons for deletion. A teacher can be a problem, when the teacher turns to a devotee of the former pupil, and then this policy would apply. But you would have to make that case under COI. Please take care with AfDs. This area on wikipedia is a mess. There are weeks of discussions about deleting articles on topics with 1000s of google hits and weeks of discussion about deleting articles with their 3rd nomination by a blocked sock puppet. Nominations by deletionists who proudly proclaim they never bother to follow nominations they've created. At some point nominators need to take responsibility for their nominations. There's tons of crap on wikipedia with valid reasons for deletions. Find it and the valid reason, then nominate it for those reasons. But don't race to get as many nominations as possible for any reason whatsoever. We're still trying to create an encyclopedia here. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ..I didn't. I see your point about the interpretation of "independent"; when I wrote the nom, my interpretation was different. I have amended the nom now. Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been blanked as a copyright problem, as it is an unusable close paraphrase of a previously published site for which verification of licensing release has not yet been provided. However, I believe that the AfD should be permitted to continue. While copyright concerns can be eradicated by permission, notability concerns are not so easily addressed. If the AfD holds that the subject is notable, the text will either need to be verified or replaced with rewritten content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 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.