Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aro gTér

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aro gTér

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a self-promotional article about a fringe organization or limited notability. Most sources go to the organization's own web site. Those not to such sources tend to be supporting side topics and do not establish notability Montanabw ^(talk) 03:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom (If the above isn't considered a !vote, and if it is, I'm not trying to vote twice) Montanabw ^(talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article concerns a minor and insignificant western cult.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I found saying cult are definitely unreliable. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my previous comment Sought consensus and compromise on article talk page, then withdrew when editors abused principle of incremental process. Lily W (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expand - The article is obviously notable. There are many other Talk:Aro_gTér/Sources to expand. There is a coordinated attack on this faith. I am responsible and will leave for a while. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZuluPapa5 has a probable COI. And his sources either don't discuss the article subject at all, or are written by Aro gTer members.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe all of that, you have been misled. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have engaged the topic on the talk page for a week now (notability concerns date back there for years, see archive) and have been unable to find notability: barely a mention in any sources anywhere. This is a private religious group of a handful of persons and is not only not notable, it is barely even possible to find a cite after many days of people looking pretty hard. Ogress _smash! 05:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that few folks show up here, that lie will win here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say I lie? Ogress _smash! 10:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading the article talk page, where all of this has been hashed out for weeks already, I can see that ZuluPapa5 is still playing the same old tune. I'm seriously wondering just how many more years we have to deal with this? Either ZuluPapa5 is here to build an encyclopedia or he's not. Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that to heart. I want to do better for wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - Very few sources. The group is being mentioned by Melton & Baumann; it has been banned by e-whatsersname, what may be a claim to notability. I don't know. They exist, that's it. ZuluPapa5, if this article is being deleted, so what? Just let it be. There's more to life (or Buddhist practice) than Wikipedia. It's not worth the attachment. And hey, better no coverage than negative coverage. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it goes, just seems like a waste to me. Aw, and thanks best advice I've ever had on wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zuluppa, you can "userfy" the article in your own namespace if you want to keep a draft to work on. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing whatsoever promotional about the article as it currently stands: [1]. Plenty of sources available; six are already listed in the article. Here are some I found on a search: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], for starters. If there are content disputes, AfD is not the place to resolve them. Additionally, WP:DONTLIKEIT or WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE are not reasons to delete. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF on this, as I have been looking at the source material on this article for quite some time. Of the sources you found above, [2] is an encyclopedia, and Ok as far as it goes for a tertiary source, but [3}, [4], [5], [6] are ALL by the founder of the group and/or his guru - Ngakpa Chogyam and/or Khandro Dechen, and hence at best, are primary sources. The Google Scholar search at [7] is also top heavy with works by these two people. The reference at [8] is to "Aro Gar," not "Aro gTér" and is too short to determine if they are even talking about the same group, the reference appears to be about a concept. [9] is the same book as [4], [10] is another Google scholar search, but for "Aro Gar" and is less useful. [11] is an in-house web page. The only sources that would pass WP:RS would be [2] and maybe [8] if that source is even discussion the same thing. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Citing material written by the founders of the group proves that this group is not notable.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment Removing my previous recommendation. Wikipedia is not a place to pick fights based on personal hostility and religious prejudice. I hope abuse of the principles of consensus seeking and genuine collaboration can be addressed systemically at some point. Lily W (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, see analysis above, these are mostly not independent sources. I put up this nomination because after weeks and months of drama, none of the people seeking to expand the article have come up with anything that passes WP:RS, their propsoed the source material, other than refs for things unrelated to this group, are mostly "in-house" sources from various Aro web sites or else books by the founder of the group or his guru. There is a dearth of third party notable source material and an overabundance of WP:FRINGE. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lily, you made one edit in 2008, adding fouur fact-tags. yours is a WP:SPA. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned my involvement with the article here because it says in the AfD guidelines that you should do so. Lily W (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide titles and links, instead of "a book" etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO the page has some issues but that doesn't mean the group itself necessarily does. Should be rectified but not deleted; deletion promoters seem to be unwilling to consider any mitigating info or arguments.JosephYon (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @JosephYon:, we "deletion promoters" cannot FIND sources to rectify, and the article keepers haven't provided any. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is notable enough for an entry in the "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices", an actual paper encyclopedia with reputable editors, then it is also notable enough for wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very skeptical of your argument. Many of these so-called "reliable" entries are self-submitted. This particular source has been seriously criticized as non-scholarly on Amazon.[12] The professional review offered by Wade Osburn of Freed-Hardeman University also points out very serious shortcomings with this source. Sorry, but if this is the best argument you can offer, deletion seems to be the best option at this time. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015

That is not for you to decide, but thanks for your unsolicited opinion. Reviews on Amazon however are not a source we are even allowed to consider in making judgments here, as I am sure the closer will realize.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the best argument for a keep that you can make is based on a likely self-submitted entry in an unreliable tertiary source, I would have to say that your argument doesn't cross the keep threshold. Perhaps I should start my own religion and submit to this encyclopedia since they will publish anything. Of course, Wikipedia is based on high quality coverage in secondary sources, so perhaps you may wish to reconsider your decision. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aro gTér has a half page, four paragraph entry in "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices" - two of those paragraphs are a rambling preamble which actually have nothing directly to do with Aro gTér, and half of the other two paragraphs are quotes from Ngakpa Chögyam. The rest is just a paraphrase of some of what Aro gTér say about themselves. The only sources cited for the Religions of the World article are two books by Ngakpa Chögyam (aka Ngakchang Rinpoche) and his "consort". I've been hunting for weeks but cannot find a single good independent source on Aro gTér - though there are plenty of websites and quite a few books by Ngakpa Chögyam and his followers. The whole "tradition" appears to be based on a vision of Ngakpa Chögyam himself or a recollection of his past life as the male consort of Arö Lingma who is supposed to be the original discoverer of the Aro gTér teachings. In the end it boils down to whether one believes in Ngakpa Chögyam and his visions - which a small group of his followers do. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im seeing reliable sources brought forward here and on Talk:Aro gTér the fact that they were published and multiple books at that is something to consider. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately described in a few reliable citations.[13]-[14]-[15] Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Bladesmulti and Knowledgekid, please do consider this assessment of the sources: [16]. Everything keeps tracing back to the same person over and over again. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As pointed out below, RS are RS, the publishers are not primary sources used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - everything I can find suggests this is a small sect ("cult" seems unnecessary) popular among a small group of non-Tibetan Buddhists. Adherents publish prolifically but few outside the sect have taken the time to provide the sect with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Looking at the resources produced by the organisation for its own members, again there is a suggestion that we're talking about a relatively small group with most "events" in Cardiff or Bristol and a handful elsewhere (but focused on a select few locations). Yes, it gets a mention in Religions of the World but the content is quite plainly sourced to books published by the organisation itself. Yes, you'd expect the same for most of the religions there but that's kind of the point. None of those entries really cite coverage in independent sources. That might be sufficient for them, but we have slightly different standards. There's maybe one or two other sources there - I'm not convinced they quite get us over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. On first look the movement appears to have a number of sources supporting its notability, but they all seem to come back to primary sources produced by the movement itself and I don't think we have the third-party coverage needed to demonstrate notability. If it is kept, the factual statements about lineage need to be changed to say that, for example, the movement claims its lineage rather than stating it factually, as there are no third-party sources attesting to the claims. Squinge (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (update: see below Squinge (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I've now done a fair bit of Google searching, and I can find precisely zero independent coverage of Aro gTér in reliable sources. Everything, even "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices", seems only to quote or paraphrase the primary sources of Aro gTér itself. Squinge (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Squinge For Wikipedia's notability standard, it does not matter whether an academic Encyclopedia quotes primary sources. That would matter for an academic standard, but Wikipedia standards for 'independent source' are not the same as academic standards. There's a list here[17] of independent sources on the Aro gTer that meet Wikipedia's criteria, with an explanation of why and how they meet Wikipedia's standards as independent sources for notability. Those 10 sources do match the notability criteria. If you want to argue that any of them do not meet wikipedia's standards for notability, you would need to explain, for example, how and why an independent national newspaper like The Observer with a double page spread on the Aro gTer, does not fit this explanation, (from WP:INDY) of independent source: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective." In what sense does the Observer have any vested interest in the Aro gTer? Or this: "attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" (from WP:AUD.) In what sense does a BBC program largely about the Aro gTer not fit that standard? A Google search would be a good first point of call if no sources had yet been detailed...but it is meaningless if sources are already listed. Lily W (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But The Observer's "two page spread on the Aro gTer" doesn't mention Aro gTer. On the Talk page, it was described instead as being about Ngakpa Chogyam: "*A two-page color article solely about Ngakpa Chögyam, the Aro lineage holder, in his teaching role, in The Observer, a UK national publication, the world's oldest Sunday newspaper." Also "*A 21-paragraph newspaper article solely about the Aro gTér, (particularly vajra romance) in The Western Mail, a Welsh national newspaper." doesn't mention Aro gTer either. Both support there being a Wikipedia article about Ngakpa Chogyam, but not about Aro gTer. I assume no deception is meant in characterizing the sources, which I guess are all on the general topic, and there's no real issue that description of two-page spread morphed somewhat, but I want to make a distinction between coverage of Aro gTer as an organization vs. coverage of lamas involved. Other sources on Talk page might or might not mention Aro gTer, I don't know what to believe does actually specifically cover it now. --do ncr am 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lily W, yes, you've convinced me that there are good sources out there for notability, so I've changed my !vote to Keep. Squinge (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for info-based reappraisal Squinge Lily W (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Squinge:, did you actually LOOK at the sources used in the article or just take the arguments here? Also, a list somewhere else of RS is useless unless actually in the article. As far as I can see, these sources all just blindly quote the same people's stuff. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I insert comment above, that the two-page spread doesn't cover Aro gTer, nor do some (all?) of the others. --do ncr am 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw:We've been over this too many times. You seem to not understand the requirements for notability. Many of the sources used in the article (as it was prior to mass deletion) are primary, and that's fine. They are not required to prove notability. The ten sources I linked to above are independent in wikipedia's terms, and any two or three of them would prove notability. Lily W (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the sources both in the article and some of those suggested by Lily W, and overall I think there's enough to support notability for the organisation and/or its founder. I do think it's marginal, but I'd err on the side of inclusion in such cases, and I do think there's enough to support some coverage in some way - maybe at the current title, or maybe renamed as suggested by doncram. Squinge (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usefy at best, per Montanabw. As of now, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an entry in a subject encyclopedia is definitive proof of notability for this or any other subject. It indicates the expert editors of the encyclopedia considered the group sufficiently important. Small does not mean non-notable, especially for religions. Sources related to the group are reliable enough to give the basic facts and the beliefs. DGG (talk)
- Comment: Not necessarily; some of these works are either pay to play or else they just gleam from everyone's web site to increase sales. I mean, I've been "invited" (for a fee) to be "honored" in a who's who of college professors, and I'm just an adjunct. (I've also been similarly "invited' to be in a who's who for my day job too, but I can assure you I'm not particularly notable there, either) All it takes is your credit card... Montanabw ^(talk) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t know of any subject encyclopedias that are pay to play -- as distinct from who's whos and the like. Certainly not this one, from a reputable publisher. RS are RS , even when they cover what you personally think unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that RS are RS. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in a paper encyclopedia by a highly reputable publisher is proof of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is the coverage actually general notability according to Wikipedia? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" ... "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ogress _smash! 09:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the content in "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices" is short and is sourced solely to quotes from the movement itself, I'd say that does not count as significant coverage by independent third parties. Squinge (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was no WP:RS for the article as it was when this AfD was posted - only primary sources by the founders of the tradition, websites associated with Aro gTer, and a couple of tertiary sources which only repeat what Aro gTér says about itself were used as sources (other than for a few parts which really had nothing to do with the subject of the article). Since then someone has removed the junk and effectively made the article into a stub (which is better than it was). If the article is kept, then it should not get filled up up with all that junk again. Just leave more or less as is until some good quality reliable secondary sources appear (which, if the subject is notable, they should). But meanwhile, in the absence of such sources, I don't think the subject really meets notability guidelines. Currently there are no reliable independent sources that actually examine and discuss Aro gTér in a meaningful way - only a couple of tertiary sources with brief, rather insignificant, entries that do nothing more than summarize or repeat a few things Aro gTér says about itself. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question: any list-article available? - This seems to be a difficult AFD case, with well-meaning editors applying good consideration. Seems civil and constructive discussion of disagreement at Talk page of article and here. I haven't attempted to review available sources and won't "vote" now and am relatively uninformed. Nonetheless I like one compromise about the article suggested at the Talk page, that the article content need not be bogged down in distinction of whether tradition/history of group is objectively historic or not (I probably am not summarizing it correctly, but the compromise seems constructive). Also I sense validity on both sides of AFD: that there is a sect or religion here with some coverage in at least one encyclopedia so it seems sort of obviously valid as a topic, but on the other hand there's little/no evidence of size of the sect or religion and most or all of the sources seem to be primary or reports based on the primary sources. So, how to close? I would sort of hope for some compromise in closing, perhaps that this be merged/redirected to some list of similar sects? So the edit history remains available and the article could be restarted if/when more reliable coverage becomes available. For a list-article item, the standard is lower for coverage; an item does not need to be Wikipedia-notable for an individual article. Is there any possible list-article available? Or what list-article could now be created to cover this and similar sects? Let's start that now? --do ncr am 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list article would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Oh, thanks. I was adding: Specifically, there is Category:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism with 12 direct members and 10 subcategories, but no corresponding List of schools of Tibetan Buddhism (currently a redlink). How about List of schools and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism (a redlink now)? Wherever there is a sizable category in Wikipedia, it is usually helpful/good to have a corresponding, complementary list-article, as described in guideline wp:CLT. I am not at all familiar with this topic area, but it seems to me that a broad list-article trying to discuss and make sense of the different schools and lineages and so on would be really useful. There is a brief listing in the main Tibetan Buddhism article at Tibetan Buddhism#Schools, but that is short and could have a "main" link going out to a more expanded list-article. It would not be appropriate to include an entry about Aro gTer within the main Tibetan Buddhist article. Define a list-article broadly enough so that it can have a section listing schools or lineages like Aro gTer that might be considered "fringe" or "minor" or whatever. There must be others, right? Again, I am uninformed about this topic area, but I have experience elsewhere in Wikipedia with list-articles that helped a lot in stabilizing coverage and enabling sensible continuing development. --do ncr am 17:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "weak delete" position was for exactly the reasons you outlined. The only real "coverage" available is in the encyclopaedia mentioned above. It does, though, treat this sect as one of a list of major and minor religions, sects and other groups and I would have no objection to Wikipedia treating it the same way until such time as a more substantive article can be justified. However, I am in the same position as doncram and would not be well-placed to create/manage an article like that going forward. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think nonetheless it would be relatively easy to start or help start a list-article, drawing from treatment already in Wikipedia, and leave it in good condition for others to further develop it. Please watch and/or help at Draft:List of schools and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism where I will start something. Advice on better title and anything else welcomed there or its Talk page. --do ncr am 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources listed here[18] seemed to match notability criteria at least adequately. This was agreed on the talk page. The edit history of the article does not reflect talk page discussion. A series of mass deletions from 14th January on, by those purportedly engaging in discussion on the talk page, ignored any constructive discussion there had been prior to that date. These sources were almost entirely deleted from the article when it was reduced to a stub. Lily W (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but the sources listed at the Talk page aren't great. One was presented as "*A 21-paragraph newspaper article solely about the Aro gTér, (particularly vajra romance) in The Western Mail, a Welsh national newspaper." However, the source has NO mention of Aro gTer. The source goes towards establishing notability of Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche, however. Why not develop an article about him, if there is not one, and cover Aro gTer within that. (Or should it be Ngakpa Chögyam or Ngak'chang Rinpoche or set up redirects to whatever it should be named). --do ncr am 00:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aro Gar seems to be the same as Aro gTer. Google-searching on ("Aro gar" buddhism -wikipedia) brings me to The Buddhist Experience in America, p. 224-5, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004, by Diane Morgan. Google book excerpt The passage on p224-5 is:

One unique branch of the Nyingma tradition is Aro Gar. The Aro Gar lineage, also called the Mother Essence lineage, emanates from a succession of enlightened women. The Aro Gar was the place in the Himalayas where Khyungchen Aro Lingma (1886-1923), the source of this lineage, lived in a community of practitioners that formed around her and her son Aro Yeshe (1915-51), the latter of whom received pure vision transmission directly from Yeshe Tsogyel, the female Tantric Buddha. Aro Gar is a nonprofit organization, serving the United States and the Americas. It works closely with Sang-ngak-cho-dzong and its sister organizations in Europe, dedicated to bringing the "white tradition" of the Nyingma school to the West. The Aro Gar is a nonliturgical, nonmonastic tradition that specializes in the teaching and practice of Dzogchen. The Aro school has found some favor in the West because of the emphasis it places on the importance of everyday working life as sexual equality and the spiritual dimension of romantic relationships. In the United States the Nyingma school has focused more intently on meditative, devotional, and Tantric practices than academic textual study. / Another Nyingma organization is the Chagdud Gopa, founded by ...

This is one book in a series "The American Religious Experience". Series intro by a Philip Goff. This appears to be a valid, reliable source, and I think it was not already mentioned.

There's also this Google book entry on "Aro Gar" within book "The New York Guide to Buddhism: Where to go...etc." by Jeff Wilson. The Aro Gar entry gives URL http://www.aroter.org/organizations/orgs_us.htm, which is no longer a specifically good link, it brings one over to http://arobuddhism.org/, the URL given as external link in the current Aro gTer article under AFD. Also this is a little bit at http://www.aroter.org/ (which also gives link over to arobuddhism.org). The full Aro Gar item's text description is:

This small lineage is notable for being nonmonastic and for the unusually strong role of exceptional female lamas in its history. The emphasis is on using the teachings and practices in everyday life. They meet on Tuesdays for meditation in members' homes and hold retreats and workshops whenever prominent lamas of this lineage visit NYC. Though a minority within the Nyingma tradition, members of the Ngakphang lineage are unusually high-spirited. Aro Gar publishes vision, a quarterly magazine. See their Web site or call for more information.

I found that linked at a Talk page discussing this AFD elsewhere.

In one or more of several Dechen and Chogyam books, e.g. this Google book, there is listing of Aro Gar among other "Aro sanghas" (which are each charitable organizations?). Sang-ngak-cho-dzong is in Vale of Glamorgan, U.K., Aro Gar is in United States; Aro Gesellschaft is in Austria; Aro Gemeinschaft is in Germany. Certainly all should be covered in one article, certainly not separately covered, but these give more material to cover and more search terms? Try searching on them and try Google-searching on ("Aro gar" buddhism -wikipedia).

Isn't the first above a substantial coverage, not already considered? --do ncr am 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: The problem is when we try to find sources for this "history" it turns out that in reality the history of Aro gTér only goes back to Ngakpa Chögyam and his "visions" - there is nothing verifiable about Aro gTér beyond him - so talking about the "strong role of exceptional female lamas in its history" is quite meaningless and silly, when there is really no actual history to speak of. The place Aro Gar (in the Himalayas) and the person "Khyungchen Aro Lingma (1886-1923)" and her supposed son "Aro Yeshe (1915-51)" are also part of Ngapa Chgöyam's "visions" (or, viewed less charitably, a figment of his imagination). Though I'd be happy to be proved wrong about this, there is absolutely no objective evidence that Aro Gar, Aro Lingma, or Aro Yeshe ever existed. They are no more real than Enid Blyton's character Noddy and his friends and the Toyland which they inhabited (though I'm sure many small children really believed those characters and that place really existed). The only Aro Gar there really is is their group with that name in the US. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:@CFynn:We don't need sources for any lineage history to establish notability for an article on the Aro gTer. The article was largely about the present day organization and their teaching & practices, and there are independent sources enough to meet notability criteria.[19] The lineage history, I think we can figure out some wording to make it clear that it's 'visionary' history - like many Buddhist histories - and that it's an emic perspective, just what they say about themselves. That's no reason to delete an article - there are Buddhist organizations and lineages with articles on Wikipedia that have similar 'visionary' histories, for example: Longchen Nyingthig[20], Nam Cho [21] and plenty of Christian sects with similar imaginative backgrounds. Lily W (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The visionary history doesn't bother me, (reminds me vaguely of Mormonism, with its assumed history established by Joseph Smith), but I don't see the substantial coverage of Aro gTer. As I note elsewhere some of the Talk page sources stated to cover it don't even mention Aro gTer, though they do support an article about the founder. Maybe the Longchen Nyingthig and Nam Cho organizations you mention are similar and could be covered with Aro gTer in a list-article about Nyingma lineages, though i am not sure, but I don't see that being developed. I am "voting" merge (to an article about the founder) below. --do ncr am 00:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You raise an interesting idea, Doncram. I don't think the "Aro" lineage or concept within the Nyigma tradition is precisely the same as this small fringe group, but they may be a part of something slightly more significant, but with more people involved than just this bunch. My thinking is to delete but userfy this article in the namespace of one of the lead editors (User:Arthur Chos or User:User:Lily W, provided they aren't the same person) and then recommend that a list article be created, with the content here possibly being part of a larger annotated list with some appropriate title about the overall lineage. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'they may be a part of something slightly more significant, but with more people involved than just this bunch'. What is your source for these claims? I'm not sure what 'this small fringe group' and 'this bunch' refers to, could you clarify? (With links/sources?) Thanks. And could you reference the 'something slightly more significant' that you think might have more people involved? What organization is that? Also, by 'this small fringe group' are you referring to the Aro gTer? It's been pointed out in several places already that their website has contacts across the UK, USA and Europe and teachers (presumably with students) in 16 places. There are some centers which appear to be their own listed on this page.[22] One of the references on this version[23] of the Aro gTer wikipedia article, now reduced to a stub, refers to Sang Ngak Cho Dzong as the UK charity/administrative center. They have about 5 or 6 large websites, which suggests they may be larger than you think. There's an event site which lists events simultaneously in France, Germany, Austria, New York, Wales, Bristol, Finland, and so on...all of these are easily verifiable facts. I couldn't find anything at all when I searched for Aro, or Aro lineage, or Aro Buddhism, which was Buddhist but did not refer to the Aro gTer. What or who, specifically, were you referring to? Lily W (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: @Montanabw, Bladesmulti, Stalwart111, Doncram, Joshua Jonathan, Ogress, and VictoriaGrayson: Maybe no need for a new list article. Aro gTér is already briefly mentioned in the existing article Buddhism in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that could be expanded into a brief paragraph (which is currently about all we really have good sources for) or a sub-section in that article, and Aro gTér could redirect there. If, at any time later, some good independent sources about Aro gTér, sufficient for a full article, appear then the redirect page can always be changed back into an independent article using those sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that we need 'good independent sources about the Aro gTér, sufficient for a full article' is misleading. We don't need 'good independent sources' for article content - only for notability purposes. The 'independent sources' that reference the notability clearly match the Wikipedia criteria for 'independent' - it doesn't matter, for wikipedia purposes, that they may originate in what the organization says about itself, so long as they're written by someone outside the organization. eg: In the case of organizations, "attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" WP:AUD. Independent sources are not needed for article content. Wikipedia policy seems to encourage expanding articles from paragraphs or stubs, and reliable sources for that would include self-published material. Lily W (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be disputable - sources that are compiled only from submissions of first parties (eg trade directories, all those various kinds of paid-for "who's who" things) are usually not considered sufficiently independent for notability. I think it depends on how much independent editorial decision went into the inclusion, and whether there was more than just "We include anyone who asks" - and that's what's unclear here. Squinge (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squinge. An academic encyclopaedia, and an academic journal published by an international press, are not the same as a 'trade-directory' or a 'who's who thing'. The encyclopaedia entry is written by a third party academic, it's a peer-reviewed encyclopaedia and it's ok for Wikipedia purposes if the person writing the encyclopaedia entry used primary sources for their information. Their personal independence from the organization is the key thing - not the source of the material that they wrote. Lily W (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was an Aro Yeshe Jungne who was active in Khams (E. Tibet) in the second half of the 10th or early 11th Century - his Dzogchen instructions are part of the Nyingma Kama (not Terma) tradition and they are said to unite the teachings of the Dzogchen mind-class (sems sde) with the teachings of the Chinese master Heshang Moheyan of the Northern Ch'an tradition (and hence were always somewhat controversial in Tibet). Of course we can properly speak of an "Aro lineage" in connection with those teachings as they have come down to the present day through a long list of known teachers. However the lineage of Aro Yeshe Jungne's instructions did not come from Yeshe Tsogyal or any Aro Lingma, they are not terma, and have nothing to do with Ngakpa Chögyam's Aro gTér - and the two should not be confused. Of course you can find some good academic references for Aro Yeshe Jungne and his instruction lineage. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though academic sources are not required for article notability or content, there are a couple on the Aroter. Discussion of their quality or length or original source is irrelevant - they fit the criteria for purposes here. Lily W (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but plan to re-title/move to Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche, and edit to develop the material about him, while covering Aro gTer in a section. (I first called for "Merge with redirect"). I tried working on a too-general list-article in draft-space as a possible redirect target, but it is not making much progress, and I am not sure if Aro gTer should be covered even if the list-article draft is narrowed to be just about Nyingma lineages (currently a redlink). I find it beyond my ability to write such a list-article anyhow. As made clear in discussion above, the historic lineage for Aro gTer is "visionary", i.e. apparently assumed/adopted, which is okay seems to me hard to work into a history-type list-article of longer, larger lineages. Probably merge/redirect to an article about the person Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche (or name it Ngakpa Chögyam or Ngak'chang Rinpoche), who is the founder, who had the vision of the historic lineage, and who seems individually notable to me, as a public figure who has been interviewed and has written books and more. Why not develop an article about him, if there is not one, and cover Aro gTer within that? Best accomplished by moving this article and re-focussing. Or another alternative is to merge and redirect to Buddhism in the United Kingdom, where there could be a section, as suggested by Chris Fynn. It doesn't bother me that there is some Aro gTer group activity in NYC and in some European countries; it seems mostly in the U.K. --do ncr am 00:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I possibly could support a merge to an article about the leader. I would oppose a merge into the Buddhism in the UK article. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His name is actually Doc Togden. http://www.aro-books-worldwide.org/shared/text/b/biography_ph_04_doc_01_eng.php , here is his fb page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Doc-Togden/126465894244 Ogress _smash! 09:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.