This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Nepal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Nepal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Nepal. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
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.
I do not believe this novel meets WP:NBOOK. It is a self-published book whose author had a wiki article that was recently deleted due to "No compelling keep arguments, LLMs, one-edit accounts, highly dodgy sourcing, and some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulasi Acharya). This article appears to suffer from many of the same issues, and I will post a full source analysis in the comments below.
Comment. Going through the list of sources currently in the article:
Source 1: The author's master's degree thesis. Not independent of the book.
Source 2: This is setting off major red flags. The byline is not a person, but just "TRN Online". The writing is terrible and nearly incomprehensible at times. Sample sentence: Deepak changes is flat time and again to stay with comfort- sometime with Nepali as well. The article is almost entirely a plot summary and does not critically review the book.
Source 3: This review is by Kay Traille, an academic who recently coauthored a book with the author [1]. They also appear to have taught a course together at Kathmandu University [2]. Not independent coverage.
Source 4: This article is the closest to being a qualifying source under NBOOK, as it provides some critical analysis and isn't uniformly positive. However, the review's author Mahesh Paudyal appears to have been a previous acquaintance of the book's author: see e.g. this Facebook post, which is from 2019 (the review is from 2020).
Source 5: This review is entirely positive and ridiculously over-the-top. It contains quotations like I am delighted to recommend this book to my dear ones, and I feel a sense of pride in doing so. and Acharya's writing is beautifully beautiful. What's more, the review's author Kunal Acharya has the same last name as the author, and the author's social media posts like [3] and [4] mention someone named Kunal Acharya. Highly dubious.
Source 6: a review of the novel in BookLife, which is a paid review service from Publishers Weekly (see e.g. [5], [6]). Paid reviews are not independent.
Source 7: A republication of Kay Traille's review in another outlet. Doesn't count as another review and still not independent coverage.
Source 8: This is just a published version of the BookLife review in Source 6 above.
Finally, the article quotes a review from Anthony Grooms, using the book's Amazon page as the source. I cannot find this review online and suspect it is just a marketing blurb, which is not independent.
Given these massive sourcing issues and the problems with the author's article, this article has a higher burden of proof to meet NBOOK, and it does not at present meet it. It should be deleted.Astaire (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching in google hardly find any sources other than those in references of this article. Except one article in The Rising Nepal (Ref 2) and Ref 7 (both are same ), all the sources are in online news of negligible reputation in Nepal. The article in TRN is not neutral as rightly pointed out by Astaire (talk) in his comment above. As we notice there were 3 articles made on him (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulasi Acharya) and his books were deleted after Afd due to issues related with neutrality of sources and repetition of same stuff written in similar tone in different onlines, which arised suspicion of being written by same person with different names. I will also like to bring into notice of admin closing this discussion that this particlar article is also target redirect of nepali version of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) which was dealt in Afd recently. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only pull up the book review (source 3) now used in the article. We would need perhaps one or two more to keep, this isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2025 (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.
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.
In Special:Diff/1255412434 an IP vandal partially WP:AHIJACKed this page through a change of the birth date of possibly another Roshan Shrestha, and following that, the substitution of "Gyan Bahadur Pradhan" with "ROSU".
The underlying, ostensibly single and real subject is the non-notable actor born as it may be in 1980, whose real name may be Gyan Bahadur Pradhan (no, that appears to be yet another individual, as explained below), and who started his modeling career reportedly in 2003. This subject fails WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverage, and fails WP:ANYBIO, as none of the criteria are met (the supposed awards are non-notable and the information on the awards is difficult or impossible to verify using reliable sources in the first place). The subject also fails WP:NACTOR, because the films aren't notable; two of the films are direct-to-YouTube productions:[7][8], and Hero Returns is this, possibly a less obscure but also non-notable film; I am unable to identify "Kapura". Some of the sources are about the films, not about the actor, but the films fail WP:NFILM, as the coverage is not significant, and for other reasons specific to NFILM.
Delete My search efforts led to a similar conclusion as Alalch E.'s. There is no significant coverage of the subject or his projects that would be needed for WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Instead of repeating all that was already said in the nomination, I'll add a few findings that may aid others in further search or prevent them from going down the rabbit holes I did, (1) the subject is distinct from the photographer Rohan Shreshta; (2) he is also distinct from "Gyan Bahadur Pradhan", aka Roshan, who produced the film Yo Man Ta Mero Nepali Hoto be released July 2025, in which the subject is an actor; (3) in his Facebook page the subject mainly talks about himself as a choreographer, rather than actor or model. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this page has at various times (and during a period of time concurrently) included information about four individuals: (1) Roshan Shrestha, actor; (2) Gyan Bahadur Pradhan, aka Roshan, producer; (3) Rohan Shrestha, photographer; (4) the ostensible "born in 2004" entity about whom we can suspect is a younger individual named Roshan Shrestha who hijacked the page. —Alalch E.17:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope we can get some feedback from Endrabcwizart who is the experienced editor who created this article. As they live in Nepal, I'm sure they can help with the sources since the likely located most of them and they could help us sort through what has happened with this article over the past year. LizRead!Talk!19:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
contribute - Recently, I received a notification that I was mentioned here for a meaningful contribution. I try to give my best. I am the creator of this article, but I am not participating in the discussion regarding keeping, deleting, or any other actions.
Whenever I create an article, I review multiple references beforehand. Since I live in Nepal, I have access to information beyond mainstream news, such as insights from social media and various interviews— additional details for me that may not be part of this discussion.
When I originally created this article, there were sufficient reliable sources. However, there has been a massive change since then. I was unaware of these changes, but if I had noticed them, I would have requested a "protection lock" for a certain period to prevent alterations.
If we evaluate the current article, it seems to be heading toward "speedy deletion," which was shocking for me when I saw such significant modifications. At this point, :I request a review of the article's history, as it may be helpful. I will continue contributing if the article is restored or draft
In Nepal, English newspapers are growing, but over 90% of media coverage is in Nepali. I understand that this creates challenges for participation and contribution. While various tools are available, they can be time-consuming. Below, I have provided some reputable and well-covered references that may be helpful for the discussion.
Thanks for the comment. This is the content that you created (with some lesser incremental and maintenance edits by other editors) before any significant changes were made to the content: Special:PermanentLink/1237024129. What you published starts with: Roshan Shrestha (Nepali : रोशन श्रेष्ठ) also known as Gyan Bahadur Pradhan ... However, Gyan Bahadur Pradhan, aka Roshan is not Roshan Shrestha. So there was a mixing of subjects from the beginning. A lot of the content is not verifiable according to WP:BLP standards (obvious lack of citations next to statements). The sources in the linked revision do not show that the topic is notable. The three new sources which you provided also do not show that the topic is notable. —Alalch E.23:38, 28 March 2025 (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.
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.
Fails Notability. Whatever sources given are all primary. Article has promotional tone. Loaded with unsourced info indicating COI. Immediately Moved back into mainspace without any improvement. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not notable. Not much is from newspapers or broader sources. I think it needs to be improved and go back to draft space. There lots of info and it makes me think there is someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:46, 2 April 2025 (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.
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.
Reason Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
This entire article contains numerous unreferenced claims about the various variants of sit-ups, lacking any reliable sources to support them. The information appears to have been added by some bunch of students, incorporating misleading and nonsensical details that violate Wikipedia’s content policies. Furthermore, most of the information on this topic is derived from news sources and it is not required to make a seperate article for this topic in wikipedia if further research isn't made.[reply]
I'm not sure what's worse, the sourcing only beginning at the bottom of the article or the fact that no-one in 11 years has consulted any sort of decent source to discover that uthak baithak is in fact squatting, as is murga (which we currently have at stress position). Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the referenced content into the "Sit-up" article and delete the article and the large amount of unreferenced content. A independent article about sit-ups as a punishment does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedialuva (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G: I guess the "Squat (exercise)" article would probably be a better place to move the referenced content to than "sit-ups". Although minimal, some of the referenced material appears likely salvageable and worth moving. However, given the reasons outlined by myself and others, I concur with the deletion of the article. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with ERcheck and quite concur w/ Uncle G, this article rambles on for far too long before citing anything (and even then, it only does so twice in-text). It seems like WP:NOTESSAY ought to apply here. Xarinu (Talk 2 Me :] ) 04:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is two degrees of Wikipedia, via the disambiguation headnote, from the article that I hyperlinked earlier in this discussion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2025 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic entry Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came into thinking about !voting redirect to List of Birdlife Partners, but I've found several sources which discuss this particular organization in detail enough for WP:NORG. Their vulture program[10][11][12] and birding app[13][14] in particular both got international attention, and I've incorporated that information into the article. There's a lot of passing mentions in scholar sources, due the amount of data BCN produces on Nepalese bird populations, so I'm still filtering through those to see if there's anything in academia about them (given the coverage so far, I strongly suspect there might be - absolutely there's some in connection with the Indian vulture crisis). But anyways, I've rewritten the article and the new sources in it should demonstrate how it passes WP:GNG and NORG. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋21:59, 20 March 2025 (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.
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.
Procedural keep - nominator is launching several AfDs within a short timeframe, with copy-paste deletion rationale without virtually any detail. AfD nominations are launched with just minutes apart, pointing to that nominator has not performed WP:BEFORE in a reasonable manner. --Soman (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is the coverage routine or not? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again, as Veldensk has put in some good work here on these and helped to my job reviewing additionally for notability easier, I can conclude again, that this meets notability and is not merely covered in a purely or trivially "routine" manner. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2025 (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.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get a deeper look at whether these sources are routine, please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, routine coverage, when expanded out into a higher density and frequency on a single subject, no longer becomes "routine". This is why things like the American Super Bowl are perfectly notable. No need to discriminate here if there are differences of the types of outlets that bring this to notability based on language or regional differences alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2025 (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.
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. The discussion is split between those who think there is sufficient sourcing for an article, and those who think it isn't, with neither having the upper hand. There is small support for merging, which suggests that can be a compromise everyone can live with. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment: When making a 2nd nomination less than 4 months after the previous closed, you are obliged to comment on the previous discussion and why it should be revisited. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD was a procedural close because the tournament had not yet happened, but was happening soon. Now it has happened, we can assess the notability appropriately. The last AfD closure even says that a new AfD after the event has happened is fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we start assuming having this much coverage is not enough then we should start nominating every full member domestic tournament article or should not create any articles of domestic tournament since they also have not enough coverage and some countries article are created with just routine coverage think of that too.Godknowme1 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never told Nepal is full member nation, my point is every full member country domestic tournament lacks significant coverage yet we create separate articles need to rethink what is reliable and what is routine.Godknowme1 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we start comparing others leagues with IPL no need for Afds just delete it, my point was even domestics cricket tournament of full members lacks coverage yet we make article and there is no problem having this much coverage should be sufficient.Godknowme1 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the relising comment and as there's an assertion about the three sources I supplied I wish to comment. All three contain *analysis* of the impact of the 2024 tournament satisfying WP:NEVENT and the WP:GNG. Furthermore, this is more than apporpriate as an WP:OKFORK. Certiainly if the 2024 comp was an abject failure or was cancelled, I could understand grounds for not having a separate article, but there's clearly more than adequate material for this to be a stand alone article. If we were talking about Dutch cricket, I might have a different view (depending on the sources!) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Nepal Premier League and delete. No evidence that the competition merits season by season articles. Wikipedia is not a sports/cricket almanac, or a mirror of external cricket databases. Not a useful redirect or search term so can be deleted after merge of encyclopedic content. wjematherplease leave a message...19:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One last round. Otherwise this will probably be closed as no consensus, once again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk)10:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may I just point out that in Nepal, the year is now 2081. So it would perhaps be better to search for NPL 2081 rather than 2024? Now this is clearly a major event in Nepal, see press coverage such as [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc.. --Soman (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please illustrate how this would be "recycled press releases". From my reading, they are press articles and as such independent secondary sources. --Soman (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Match reports with basic information like these and an explanation of tournament schedule are not significant coverage, all routine coverage that you would expect for any event. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the three sources linked by Goldsztajn. Those are some extremely solid sources providing independent, secondary analysis of the significance of the 2024 iteration of this tournament. Though Soman's sources don't provide as much weight to establishing the notability of the subject, they do show that there is enough detail covered in sources that including it all in the main Nepal Premier League article would be undue, so I oppose a merge. The deja vu hit me like a truck...nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I saw this at AfD again. Toadspike[Talk]22:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps the closer, Goldsztajn's sources are not "routine". The "Overcoming Challenges" section of the second source, for instance, is the furthest one can get from "regurgitated press releases". Though these sources sometimes read promotionally (likely an understandable expression of national pride), the inclusion of phrasing like "the NPL is likely to confront issues with financial sustainability and challenges in staying competitive among the eight franchises" (third source) show that these are not just puff pieces. Toadspike[Talk]22:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am frankly astonished to see these sources described as "routine". The sources shown in this AfD are not puff pieces or press releases, either. -- asilvering (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2025 (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.
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. Despite a discussion open for three weeks, there's very limited source analysis. Arguments for keep do at least point to sourcing and delete arguments were somewhat weak since assertions of routine coverage or lack of significant coverage without actual analysis cannot be given much weight. It's also made further inconclusive as the merge contribution implies there is material worth retaining. As such, all sides even each other out. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Jay Trophy and delete. No evidence that the competition merits season by season articles. Wikipedia is not a sports/cricket almanac, or a mirror of external cricket databases. Not a useful redirect or search term so can be deleted after merge of encyclopedic content. wjematherplease leave a message...19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Godknowme1 Stop commenting twice, double votes are not allowed. You also did the same thing in another discussion. You know very well that vote stacking is not permissible at all. I am striking your second vote. RoboCric Let's chat10:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in the article are enough to show that this iteration of an annual tournament received significant coverage and meets the GNG. In addition, a web search for "2025 "jay trophy"" turns up far more sources, such as this, which shows that the references currently cited are far from exhaustive. If this is not kept, I would prefer a merge/redirect to Jay Trophy to outright deletion. Toadspike[Talk]19:33, 28 March 2025 (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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
