Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalpo

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 of the debate was Delete Wikibofh_(talk) 05:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jalpo

The article is all original research, poorly written, and cites no references that actually talk about the subject matter of the article - worse than this however, it appears to be a complete fiction. Googling came up with nothing relevant. ZoFreX 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per ZoFreX. Googling for "gyalpo" instead of "jalpo" comes up with some results, but this is apparently a common word in the Tibetan language and few if any of the results have anything to do with whatever this article is about. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause, I'm reporting you to Wikipedia for the following "... undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert. That is what you did when you outrightly deleted 20 kilobytes of page at Jonang-Kalachakra Controversy see History : [1]

A pattern of wrongful deleting and of incorrect assumptions so as to create problems somewhat akin to vandalism is appearing with your assertion here that Gyalpo and Jalpo were not found on Google which is blatlantly a lie in view of the plethora of that. Add in gto your previous deleting manner, I found it right to warn Wikipedia of your deeds. I'm also filing for undeletion of Jalpo as your charges are unfounded here. Geir Smith 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, article for keep. The Googling probably didn't work out right but I have references to Gyalpo-Jalpo all over the net. Just it's tough to see, because Gyalpo is also an ordinary name of persons like John or George in English. Here's one reference. I'll give more of such; and for good measure I'll also provide them on the page. It's not a hoax or other things that I've seen it here described as. I'm afraid I've not clearly understood what people read into the page. Corrected here with Google research. This is a case of msitaken identity. Jalpo is not at all what you suspect it of being : either inidentifiable, unverifiable or original research. None of that at all. [2] Geir Smith 10:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep strongly/ reference to Melhai Gyalpo (fire spirit, the lord of genii of fire) and Sadag Gyalpo (earth spirit) in one click here : [3] Geir Smith 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep definitively. The argument that it is not found on Google is not true. Reference here to the king-sprit (rgyalpo) subdued by the world famous Padma Sambhava. There's not much more authoritative source than this in Tibetan Buddhist history seeing he's like the father of Tibetan Buddhism recognized by all schools and sects there. [4] Geir Smith 11:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete nomination/ Google search gives a ceremony of Refuge taking taught by the Karmapa (a very famous lama of Tibet) speaking of appeasing the Gyalpo spirits. [5]

No one in their sane mind can keep on claiming that these spirits don't exist in the Tibetan Tantric Buddhist pantheon. I'm surprised that no one found these references on Google but I'm giving them here so it doesn't matter. But at least the error can be fixed. But undeleting is imperative. Making errors is OK but on condition of fixing them and not leaving unverifable things on the net. The person (Nat Krause) who said Jalpo-Gyalpo is not on Google said this but it's unverifable because I found a lot of Gyalpo Jalpos on it. So, he stands corrected. So, sorry, it's a mistaken identity there for you but I've helped out with references. There *is* a gyalpo-Jalpo on Google all over it really, in fact. There are tons on Google so if needed, I'll just give some more. Thanks. Geir Smith 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• No dearth of references to Gyalpo, Tsens and other spirits. I'll just put a whole bunch of references and all can just open them here one after the other:[6](Pehar is also a form of Gyalpo-spirit)[7](Gyalpo-sprit)[8][9][10](the previous link says "gyalpo-class protectors are practised by all sects." Dorje Shugden is just the name of one gyalpo-spirit. I speak about the general definition of gyalpo or jalpo.)[11](King and demoness i.e. gyal srin means gyalpo and srinmo i.e. king and demoness. i.e. spirits that are female and male.) [12]No contest definite undelete. The web is full of Gyalpo Jalpo references and the claim is unverifiable that it's not there. Unverified claim that it's not so. Geir Smith 12:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Feezo (Talk) 01:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)*Delete. I tried to read it, but it seems to fall into the category of the "unsalvageably incoherent." Brian G. Crawford 02:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be OR. --BluePlatypus 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, possible slander.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, possible POV-pushing. JIP | Talk 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above and as part of a "pattern of wrongful deleting" - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It seems like OR to me, but I can not assert that. _→AzaToth 15:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Original objections that Jalpo is not on Google have been rectified so undelete in order. Then objections that neither Gyalpo nor Jalpo were there either also corrected. So, again undelete is in order. The two original objections disowned now; so undelete for all later delete votes that were added in order. Jalpo is a fact on Google and an important part of Tibetan culture and religion. No contest on that one. False case. No merit. People who can't find it by Googling doesn't mean one can't Google it. I've Googled it, came up with 185 hits and posted about a dozen here now. What part of this don't people understand ? How can someone honestly come and say there are no hits when they can just click the host of links I provided here like a takeaway meal ? Geir Smith 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What is this article even about? The first sentence does not give any insight as to what jalpo is, it just says jalpo should not be confused for something else. That is poor writing.--Pal5017 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• There's a mistake : Jalpo is verifiable on Googles engine

Thanks for the weak delete Aza Toth. The hoax claim is unfounded : the Gyalpo-Jalpo references are all over Internet and it's not a fiction nor a hoax. I think the page should have it's chance to get up some reference written on it concerning the nature of the Jalpo spirits in Tibetan culture. I didn't think of putting them there earlier, thinking the people reading it would all be Buddhists. But for the general public, the page needs just a few references to be written out...and needs a few days for that so weak delete is good if it can just have a few days to improve. Thus putting off a deleting agenda a few days to redo some references is good. Saying it's Original Research, I don't agree with, as I've put up other external links that support the phases of what I say on the page. While I do the new references gleaned from the links I've just given here newly (above), I'll look at the OR issue meanwhile. But the verifiability issue on Google has already been cleared up because evidence is to be found on search-engines. So, with these new links coming on and improvement on the way, a weak delete is proper, if not to say "just a beginning" of getting the page undeleted. Thanks though for this. Geir Smith 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google for either term excluding mirrors and the article creator's own site is second of the handful of remaining hits. Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete theres no mistake. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Debates like this have inspired the proposed policy at Wikipedia:EsperanzaRLY. Deizio 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Jalpo article changed. The article has been changed and references added to make the article descriptive of the deity-spirit. I thus ask for the undeletion of the page as the objections to it not being verifiable on the web is lifted. Also, objections of original research based upon this are also lifted. Geir Smith 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: The page hasn't been deleted yet... so you can't ask for it to be undeleted:) ---J.Smith 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I did some searching in Tibetan history sites and Jalpo doesn't turn up much and "Gyalpo" only shows up in the context of "Pehar Gyalpo as the Protector of the Tibetan government" in 1662. [13] I looked at some of your sources... they aren't acceptable. First of all personal homepages don't count. Neither do Wikipedia-userpages. This is the only one of your sources that even slightly verifies your claim: [14] and it's on "freenet.de". Not acceptable. We need reputable sources. read WP:V ---J.Smith 23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• J Smith, tell me what you don't approve of in the second link that I gave above (the automatic linking gives new numbers to them; but all the following are the same references as those from my first posts earlier. Just new numbers on them.): [15], it gets between half and two million hits a day. It's a peer-sponsored link. See it's descriptive page that states it gets that many hits a day here : [16] Then among the other references I gave earlier : [17] is a Rywiki page which is an established fixture of Wikipedia and peer-approved. What's the problem with it J. ? Just rabble-rousing ? Bad Wikipedia policy again for you then as keeping a civil tone is the rule and not searching for false problems. This is the Sussex University link : [18] You've just been spouting lies J. ! What is this about "we"... "needing reputable sources" J. ? You're representative of Wikipedia ? That would mean poor luck for Wiki if *you* represent it, right ! You're just smearing aspersions here. The links are great links one and all. This link : [19] is to E-Sangha, and it's a well-established and world-wide newsgroup that is peer-sponsored. It's one of Tantric Tibetan Buddhisms premier groups if you want to really know about it. This and just about all these links are unquestionably excellent. Like these two again; one with E-Sangha, and one with "rywiki" (do you question rywiki as sources to undelete this article ? So if you question rywiki, then you're questionning Wiki itself then ! Ha. Weird logic, turning on Wiki in that case then. "Don't trust anyone even your own..." This is the Wiki - "rywiki" - page-site that J. Smith's not accepting for reference.) : [20][21] Definite lifting deletion tag on this article. J. Smiths objections are nul, void, each and every one of them. I doubt if one of his objections is valid even. Geir Smith 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleting deletion tag on page[22] [23] So, J. Smith, these two references, that you accept, and the four I have found above, make up six, so what are you talking about these not being valid ? You should do some serious research before "attacking" others research and efforts. Plus you say the second one from freenet.de i.e. Gruschke, isn't acceptable, well come again. He wrote a paper to Leiden University on that page which is just the support for it. So you'll have to revise your statement. Since when is university work to such prestigious universities as Leiden not accepted ? You must be dreaming bad. Case done, made and won. Geir Smith 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• J Smith, I am filing for the "delete" tag to be taken off the page. What do you see wrong in university theses to serve as reference for the page ?

Anyways it's not because Wikipedia doesn't recognize the existence of Gyalpos or Jalpos (for Tibetan Buddhism) that they don't exist : I have the proof multiplied by ten on Google. I don't think that fighting this will be right for you because the outcome is that. Also, I think that the university references that abound in my references links are very good, on the contrary. Geir Smith 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Delete tag on Jalpo page. The objections of the two first nominations for deletion by ZoFreX and Nat Krause have been lifted as I've found, produced, and posted about a dozen links to Gyalpo-Jalpos from the web (even if it is just on this deletion-page). Thank you for obliging... as no proof of their claims exist. Given ample proof the onus is on the prosecution to answer. No one is considered guilty until proven to be so. False accusations must be dealt with without weakness. Wikipedia policy. It is against Wikipedia policy to let false accusations stay on Wikipedia and this page is proof of the facts that are put forth for the record. No doubt is thus left in this matter. Geir Smith 15:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• KeepJ. Smith, Hi, I've changed the self-referencing links

on the page at Jalpo and the Wiki referencing links have been backed up by non-WIki ones. I think this adresses your concerns and also opens up for the pages being brought into WIki policy constraints. Please keep it's vote. Go from a weak delete to keep. I'll also include shortly, in the references, the "Pehar Gyalpo" reference that you provided above; and the people.freenet.de one (Gruschke) from Leiden University that I think are both perfectly acceptable. Given the three other references from Wiki and E-Sangha; the one from Sussex University; that of sacred-texts.com (one to two million hits a day) that are all perfectly acceptable as references (I think), that makes eight *grounded* and researched references. I've excluded other site-references although they are perfectly clearly appearing on Google, and that may also well be perfectly authentified sources for all that. We're thus looking at a total throve of at least ten to twelve potential references boiled down to a conservative selected number of eight of them. So, as I say, keep it, it's right. Geir Smith 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thousands and thousands of words, and I still don't know what it is. This stinks of hoax or OR. If it is not a hoax or OR, I would still support a delete, or removal of all material and reversion to substub since current content is incoherent after more than enough time. AKAF 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wait I'm working on widening and making easy the search for people verifying the information and trying to make Tibetan language terms easy to scroll down by explaining the names and word meanings involved. I think I've done a good job on some of the links I added to the page today because they're trustworthy reliable sources and easy to understand (or see). The definition window when one opens the page first seems also to appear much clearer for the newcomer now. Please go check it out right now. Geir Smith 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Someone to vote a Keep now ? Time needed to streamline/outline article; so need some time to do that. But ZoFreX and Nat Krauses first reasons for nominating have been answered with ample Googling provided for the article theme and all impressions of it being a hoax dispelled by that. Just need put it in form. I think the description of Gyalpos/Jalpos gives newcomers a good idea of the article theme now, seeing I've provided new form to the page recently. More on the way now. If someone could put in a keep vote that would take the page off the hotline to deletion for the moment. Voluntaries ? Geir Smith 18:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Someone to vote a Keep now ? Time needed to streamline/outline article; so need some time to do that. But ZoFreX and Nat Krauses first reasons for nominating have been answered with ample Googling provided for the article theme and all impressions of it being a hoax dispelled by that. Just need put it in form. I think the description of Gyalpos/Jalpos gives newcomers a good idea of the article theme now, seeing I've provided new form to the page recently. More on the way now. If someone could put in a keep vote that would take the page off the hotline to deletion for the moment. Voluntaries ? Geir Smith 18:44, 26 March 2006 (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.