Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyenzhangling Monastery

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 keep and/or merge. Bucketsofg 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyenzhangling Monastery

I found this on PROD. There is a distinct lack of verifiable information about this monastery online, but I'm not a subject matter expert here and there certainly is a chance this is a notable place in the context of Tibetan Buddhist. I'm bringing this to AfD to garner a consensus.--Isotope23 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I was the one that put it on PROD. This was my explanation: "No sources. Searching google reveals that almost all hits are either Wikipedia mirrors or sites selling a poster. Unclear whether the subject is the same thing as Pelgye Ling; possible misspelling." I should point out that that the sequence "py" rarely occurs in Tibetan phonetic spelling (and never in Chinese).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Nat. Could be a misspelling, but how do we know what was intended? Also, there are no links to this article that might provide a context for determining what it might hava been meant to refer to... A Ramachandran 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm trying to hunt it down based on the fact that it's in a place called "Zhonggang". May end up being a wild goose-chase, but here's what I have so far: Zhonggang is on the Friendship Highway about 45 km from the Sino-Nepal border [1]. The route of the Sino-Nepal Friendship Highway [2] means that it must be somewhere in Xigazê Prefecture, probably in Tingri County (zh:定日縣) or maybe Nyalam County (zh:聶拉木縣; where Milarepa's cave is located, I think, and also the location of Pelgye Ling). The article on Milarepa himself is decently well-sourced, I'll try looking through books on him. cab 05:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, that was what I was hoping for... I didn't see any real online sources in English but the fact that several sites sell pictures of it suggest it may be notable to someone. Maybe it's just a Tibetan tourist trap... but like I said, I'm not knowledgable enough about this that I was comfortable deleting it unilaterally.--Isotope23 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand Lack of online English sources is most definitely not proof of irrelevance for a location in a non-English speaking location. Someone needs to hunt for print sources. -- Strangelv 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ...or Merge if someone can successfully work out what to merge it with. -- Strangelv 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than proof of irrelevance, what I'm looking for here is proof of existence.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's not as much of a lack as I'd assumed from reading this discussion.

Zhonggang tibet -wikipedia:	431
Zhonggang tibet -wikipedia monastery:	108
Zhonggang tibet -wikipedia Pyenzhangling:	108

Not too shabby for a topic this disconnected from the English-speaking world.

-- Strangelv 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, "Searching google reveals that almost all hits are either Wikipedia mirrors or sites selling a poster". Looking at the first page of results for your third search there, the hits are all the latter.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this one offering it as a tourist destination? http://studienreisen.de/studienreise_1852.html I'm also unsure about the presumption that a subject of photographic posters for sale from multiple vendors would entail a fictitious location. -- Strangelv 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true that there more than zero sites other than Wikipedia mirrors and postermongers that mention this name. There are simply very, very few, and they are not particularly reliable sources. As for multiple vendors selling the poster, it is simply the name of the poster. Evidently, the photographer thought that was the name of the thing he was photographing.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Milarepa until something more authorative can be said. Looks like the place exists: "Drive to Zhangmu: (...) We will visit a nearby monastery, Pyenzhangling, where Milarepa, a famous Tibetan mystic and poet, spent many years as a hermit in the cave", but we're really discussing a one-liner here. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It does seem to be the case that there is a thing near "Zhonggang" (itself a quite obscure location at best) which one postermaker, several travel agents, and one Wikipedia editor believe is named "Pyenzhangling". Personally, my guess is that this thing is actually Pelgye Ling; it might be interesting to speculate on where the misspelling first arose. However, the situation remains that, of the sources we have found which verify its existence none qualifies as a reliable source. What are we going to merge? There is certainly not a single piece of information in this article which should appear in Milarepa.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If we have a case of ambiguous transliteration it would help to have a clear idea of what it is also transliterated as. As for Pelgye Ling, I can't find a link with both it and Zhonggang outside of this discussion. Does anyone have an alternate transliteration for Zhonggang? -- Strangelv 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If the existence of the monastery is not in doubt, and I get a bunch of good links both to (Nyalam) Pelgye Ling and Pelgyeling, then it's acceptable to include it and keep the redirect in place as a feasible misspelling. The questions here are really: 1. Is Pyengzhangling a different monastery from Pelgye Ling? So far we found no evidence for it. 2. Is the monastery, under whichever name, notable enough for a standalone article? My hunch right now is no, since the only notability is has is derived from the proximity to Milarepa's Cave. And 3. What's the most common name we should use in the article? Evidence points towards Pelgye Ling. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It's sort of an interesting philosophical question: if there is a monastery that a few people think is called Pyenzhangling, but it is not actually called that, does "Pyenzhangling" exist? In this instance, whether it does exist or not, we have no reliable source of information about it. The reason I would hesitate to describe this situation simply as ambiguous transliteration is that "Pyenzhangling" is not a very plausible Tibetan or Chinese word, since nothing resembling the sequence "py" occurs in the modern standard forms of either. It could be some kind of regional variant Tibetan, but that's purely speculative. As for Zhonggang, it appears to be a Chinese word, so there wouldn't be another spelling of the Chinese name, but it might also be known under a similar or completely different Tibetan name.
      • Everything we've seen about this Pyenzhangling so far links it to Milarepa's Cave, so let's just make it a redirect to Milarepa's Cave and be done with it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per User:Trialsanderrors Looks like a language barrier to reference. The conversation above shows interest in the topic. Jeepday 14:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're referring to. What makes it look like a language barrier? Where is there a hint that some other sources are available in other languages? And how does this conversation "show interest in the topic"? It seems like an unnecessary and frustrating waste of time to me. I'm sorry to be brusque, but I haven't gotten the impression that any of the participants knows anything about the subject so far.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep yes, a language barrier --should never have been listed in the first place. DGG 04:29, 28 January 2007 (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.