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.
On further review, I've gone ahead and tagged it. I understand an admin might prefer to let an AFD play out but this really is "unambiguous" advertising. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 27 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.
Probably not an appropriate article for that. Some of the page's content is described at Music of Nepal but I do not think that redirection or merge would suffice. Article was moved to draftspace despite one decline, and I could not find any sources describing this topic and not the music of the country in general. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 06:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written article. The title of the article doesn't match the article. Maybe Newar music? But there doesn't seem to be enough differences between Newar music and Nepalese one. I don't see any way to salvage this article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely original research and looks like a student term paper. No Wikipedia article has the author's name at the top, and this is most of that user's work on WP. Everyone starts somewhere, so I encourage this person to make constructive contributions to existing articles on Nepalese music and the like. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have multiple concerns regarding this article. Firstly, there is disconnect between the title and the content and this makes it difficult to understand the article’s actual aim and scope. Secondly, it reads more like a personal blog post and parts of it appear to be copied from elsewhere.More importantly, the article seems to misrepresent Newa (Newar) culture as the sole or defining traditional music of Kathmandu. which is not true in real sense. Kathmandu has historically been home to a diverse castes, ethnic groups, and religious communities. And each of them have been contributing to its culture. Presenting Newar traditions as representative of all traditional music in Kathmandu oversimplifies it. A quick search reveals multiple reliable sources that describe a more complex musical heritage, not limited to a single ethnic group. In its current form, the article lacks notability, and fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality. While the topic might be notable if approached from a broader and more balanced angle. this particular version does not add encyclopaedic value in my opinion. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding Significant coverage for the subject on a brief web search so far, alternatively can be draftified if new sources can be found.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
From what I can ascertain, I'm guessing this translates to "Prime Minister". It certainly isn't plausible that it means "of Nepal" and "of India" with the exact same spelling, which would make this an invalid dab page. Also, are article titles in different alphabets even allowed? I suspect not, but MOS:FOREIGNTITLE and WP:TSC don't explicitly cover this. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't speak Hindi, but google translate says this means 'Prime Minister'. Either way, it's frankly implausible for the term to be searched realistically. Translations of words in other languages are rarely even redirects, let alone DABs. jolielover♥talk05:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The English Wikipedia should not have non-disambiguatatory, non-English index pages for English-language articles. Yue🌙18:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we routinely delete similar pages either in main space or draft articles. This is almost a speedy delete: non-controversial. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all above. Non-English pages are not allowed on English Wikipedia, and this article is absolutely not required here. An English version already exists under Prime Minister (disambiguation).Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:14, 29 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.
Another book by the author Tulasi Acharya, whose own wiki article was 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.
Source 1 is the book's page on the publisher's website. Primary source, not independent.
Source 2 and Source 3 are reviews by the same person, Padam Bhattarai (one in English, one in Nepali) - so regardless, they would only count as one source for the purposes of WP:NBOOK. These reviews are suspicious: they appear to be the only thing that Mr. Bhattarai has written for either website. Someone named "Padam Bhattarai" appears to be Facebook friends with Acharya and is interacting with his posts: [1] Notably, Republica (Source 2) was deemed not reliable for a review of Acharya's work in this AfD due to an apparent (different) conflict of interest.
Source 4 is a review in The Rising Nepal by Narayan Prasad Ghimire. Mr. Ghimire seems to have a special interest in Acharya's books: he has also reviewed Sex, Desire, and Taboo for the Kathmandu Post [2] and Swapnabhumi for Nepal News [3]. In addition, Mr. Ghimire and Acharya appear to be Facebook friends: see e.g. this recent post with a comment from Mr. Ghimire. Major COI red flags here.
Source 5 is a review for the Sahitya Post by Badri Prasad Dhakal (in Nepali). The Sahitya Post is a "literary portal" that seems to accept a wide variety of content from writers, including promotional and self-promotional content. Its reliability and editorial controls are dubious.
Delete. Given the history of the other articles about this author and their books, I would need unambiguous evidence of independent reviews to be satisfied that this one passes WP:NBOOK. Per the source analysis above, I don't think this comes close to that standard. All of the reviews are highly suspicious at best. MCE89 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- First 5 books and BLP of author were deleted for similar reasons as mentioned by the nominator. (List in nomination). Regarding this article I have following conclusion. This source Source 4 is reliable. But the content is has similar format and tone as previous books reviews. Review is not neutral. The author who has written review is also involved in writing reviews of other books and appears to be closely connected to author of this book, as rightly pointed out by nominator. This one is Source 3 not different from the above article. Other Nepali sources are not reliable and not worth discussing . Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 27 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.
The result was delete. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Also, echoing some participants, it seems very self-promotional as it is unlikely that a solitary editor could be considered the "founder" of an entire Wikimedia project. LizRead!Talk!21:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, we've been through this discussion numerous times elsewhere. Tulsi is not a notable person as an "activist" nor a Wikipedian, and this article conveniently leaves out their block and ban on this very project, for paid editing, among other things, which was only reversed 4 months ago. There are not generally "founders" of individual projects on Wikimedia - and all of the sources are either unreliable or nonsense. COOLIDICAE🕶21:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some several Nepali-language reliable sources are translated into English for headlines as mentioned on Wikipedia:
No, just reliable news sources. So I decided to rewrite text so that it signifies the subject is notable and remains to exist on Wikipedia as a standalone article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for mostly the same reasons the nominator mentions. I don't trust any of the "sources" that are used to claim Tulsi is notable given this user has a very long history of UPE. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rarely comment on AFDs but given past history of Tulsi these sources presented by Absolutiva do not convince. I too share UPE concerns given these comments.--A09|(talk)11:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A biased article (regarding the undisclosed block) can be fixed, and I think the wording issues (eg "founder") can be attributed to language barriers. The problem I see is more that out of the five sources cited, only one of them appears to be sufficiently major for it to have its own Wikipedia article (Kantipur Publications) - the other four are non-notable at best. I do not know whether such an article can be "saved" or not. Leaderboard (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Just another episode in the long-running endeavour by various individuals to leverage their Wikimedia experience and goodwill for money, fame and career. There's no meat here. Sources are not independent, reliable or significant. Also fails 1E. Usedtobecool☎️04:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the same stuff keeps on appearing once a few years. I am very against writing articles about Wikipedia editors. Its just milking at this point. shame बडा काजी (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I wonder how someone can even think to write this article, As far I know, Tulsi Bhagat was recently released from block of more than 1 year duration due to some kind of professional issue. So its not ethical to write a Wikipedia article on such controversial subject. This is my personal view. Regarding notability, It has coverage but not in independent media. Hereby fails notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 16:37, 24 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.
Contested redirect without improvement (along with a personal attack). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a state level sports stadium in the US would this deletion nomination ever have been put forward? Let's try and counter - not reinforce - Wikipedia's bias problems. Atrapalhado (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP
This is a perfectly valid article that should not have been put forward for deletion (if you get your kicks deleting articles people have worked hard on, at least focus on the many thousands of unnecessary articles on US sports and popular culture, rather than seeking to scrap valid articles from non western/ non Anglosphere country topics which are inevitably harder to source but no less notable).
Anyway, this is clearly a major regional cricket ground in Nepal. Sources make clear it's one of the grounds for the major cricket tournament in the country. The article is substantially developed. Yes it needs more sources but the source cited is independent and provides good material. If our friend who put this forward for deletion wanted to do something more useful with their time, he/she could readily add additional sources from independent professional cricketing sites which can be readily found on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 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.
keep there is some in depth coverage here and independent coverage here and here, there is news coverage of them [4][5][6][7][8] some of which contain in-depth coverage of the electoral mechanics and factions in the organization. Clearly notable. --hroest20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are mistaken. There are other such unions with similar names. Plz make sure you search with exactly same name ( Sixth) RJM group. If you find anything with that particular name , plz let me know. There are many unions with initial name All Nepal National Independent Student Union but here sixth and RJM group is also included which lacks notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based solely on reliable secondary coverage (or lack thereof, i.e. WP:ORG), this article should at best be turned into a redirect to a section of their parent organisation's article. Size is irrelevant; there are Final Fantasy XIV clans with more than 59 regional branches. Yue🌙17:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is no significant discussion or consensus here yet. The arguments are of keep, delete and merge at 1 each vote after another keep was striked out. No significant mention of policies and their relevance. Discussion sought for a consensus would be whether WP:TOOSOON if there is minor or no notability or should be kept per WP:ATD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:53, 21 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.
Keep - Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union, a.k.a. Nekravisangh, is a major organization. It has declined in the past, but it was the dominant student movement in Bhaktapur for many years. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 18 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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
