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.
Weak Keep - per above. With the sources above mentioned, it indicate that there is coverage available about the subject. I'm leaning towards feeling that the article needs citations, not the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a recurring event having significant coverage and meeting basic reliability and verifiability, moderately passes WP:GNG. There are more sources available in local language too if someone can cross check. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 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.
Comment. Reviewing the sources currently in the article:
Source 1: A review with over-the-top praise but little critical analysis: Receiving a degree in English literature was just the beginning for him. Acharya’s appetite for more knowledge only amplified, and he joined Kennesaw State University to pursue an MA in creative writing... I think a novel of this stature must be read all over the world. Highly suspect.
Source 2 and Source 3 are links to the publisher's website. Not independent.
Source 4: An article by the author himself. Not independent.
Source 5 and Source 7 are articles about events the author held to promote the book. They fail WP:NBOOK criterion #1: This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Source 6 and Source 10: The same review hosted on two different web portals, "OSNepal" and "Arthik Awaj". In both cases, published without a byline. Doesn't seem reliable to me and would only count as one review anyway for the purposes of WP:NBOOK.
Source 8: A review on what appears to be a literature blog. Not reliable per WP:SPS.
Source 9: A review published in the newspaper República. In the AFD discussion for Running from the Dreamland, one of the reviews of that book was also from República, and the review's author appeared to have a personal connection with the book's author. I would suggest not treating this source as reliable for reviews for that reason.
Delete Above all mentioned in nomination by Astaire (talk) , i would like to add 2 things here. First, This particular Article has 2 sources as book reviews in reliable media ( Kathmandu Post -Source 1: and Republica - Source 9:), but both these reviews are written in similar tone which praises author from beginning of the article, clearly doubts neutrality of the authors. Rest of sources are either ordinarily media or primary sources. Secondly, Author of this book and hiss other 4 books Wikipedia articles were recently deleted in Afd for the similar reasons.Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:32, 8 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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
