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. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shamota Tala Rinpoche

[edit]

Cross-wiki spam, no sources, does not meet WP:BIO — NickK (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No Google hits anywhere other than WP projects and one Facebook page. No sources given to make me confident that there is offline coverage. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The machine-generated translation to german is also about to be deleted. Shamota Tala is either completely unknown, or does not exist at all. No sources could be provided in the german discussion. Delete this article. --Theghaz (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same in Ukrainian, Polish, Danish and many other languages. In almost all Wikipedias the machine translation of this article is either deleted, or nominated for deletion, or marked as requiring immediate improvement — NickK (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech article was deleted as a machine translation hoax. --Mercy (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, delete: Apart from no sources, I find it questionable that a person who "authored many books in Tibetan which have been translated into English, and more recently books in English", has no hits on google (including world wide bookstores), except this on wikipedia and user-created facebook group. Very likely a hoax.--Siru108 (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of Lama Shamota Tala Rinpoche, I am understandably sad to see this go, but I can see the reasons are genuine, and that in it's current state it is not suitable for Wikipedia. It is therefore with regret that I also say we should delete this article. Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete The article fails to show notability. Hekerui (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (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.