|
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.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- 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.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia: Religion, Culture of Ability and Patriarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another book by the author Tulasi Acharya, whose own wiki article 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/Mochan (novel), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running from the Dreamland, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) for previous AFD discussions of this author's books (they were all deleted).
The first source in this article (the review in South Asia Research [1]) is fine and I have no problem with it. However, the other four sources are dubious.
- The Kathmandu Post [2] was discussed in the Mochan AFD where it was deemed not reliable due to over-the-top praise for the author and book.
- República [3] was discussed in the Running from the Dreamland AFD where it was deemed not reliable due to the article's author apparently having a close connection with the book's author.
- The Annapurna Express [4] review is highly suspicious and reads like an LLM text.
- The National News Agency RSS [5] review is of a different book by the author (Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, which was deleted). No relevance for this book's notability.
With just one clearly independent and reliable review, this doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I also went through all the sources you pointed out and they appear to be national media outlets, highly reliable and the author themselve appear to be very prolific. the book getting reviewed in such journal and media outlets is not a small feat and the book itself seems to be published by very well know publisher when I checked it. I also looked at how some other wikipedia editors have given a lot of credibility to those media outlets. With that said,I think this article strongly deserves credibility. Actually I don't think wikipedia is a realiable source anyway to determine the credibility of something because if there is a syndicate of the majority editors who have no knowledge of the content and the source and are biased may end up deleting even good articles. It looks like the author has published an article in the sage journal too, and also in editorial board under sociology so you may say they are personally connected to sage Journal. only Astire and Ramadan appear to be running after this writer and their articles as if they are paid for it. 209.212.129.150 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Your IP address belongs to South Georgia State College, where Tulasi Acharya is a professor [6]. You also created Draft:Tulasi Acharya. If you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, please declare it now per WP:COI. Astaire (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Problem with this article is same as other articles made on Tulsi Acharya and his books. All nominated articles were closed as Delete and main reason were not lack of sources but reliability of sources and COI of book reviewers. Even in this article there are few sources in Reputed media like Kathmandu Post and The Republica. But again issues are same. The way they are written, Tone and flow are exactly same as previous book reviews raising strong doubt on neutrality. I also disagree with Nominator regarding Source 1, Even this article lacks neutrality. Should be deleted for lack of Neutral sourceRahmatula786 (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: Only one of the sources in the article is reliable, which means that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for books. Our article on one of the cited newspapers gives the impression that the newspaper has gone in an politically questionable direction. Meanwhile, the review in the other newspaper was written in a very odd way that might indicate that it was not actually written by its stated author. Finally, the remaining source is a review of a different book. Honestly, this article is simply one of the last vestiges of a walled garden that is in the process of being deleted. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:38, 27 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.
Nepal Proposed deletions
Deletion review
|
