Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nepal

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nepal/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Nepal

Nepal A cricket team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage, thus fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Just played 3 official international matches, WP:TOOSOON anyways... Vestrian24Bio 09:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 09:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nepal A team has played 6 official international matches and holds List A and T20 status for those matches, how can this be WP:TOOSOON for articles and for coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6] here is some links thinks enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, It will be double stander if we delete this article just because they played few mathes.Godknowme1 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Godknowme1: these are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage only, which is not enough. Vestrian24Bio 07:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all are WP:ROUTINE coverage, every article does have routine references and for this article, they represent the Nepal A side and played some of matches (official List A and T20) should enough to pass WP:GNG.Godknowme1 (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Panday

AfDs for this article:

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL fitness trainer with no significant achievements and no WP:SIGCOV. Sources are mostly, passing mentions, routine coverage, interviews and gossips around her notable relatives. The article was created by a blocked SPA. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Health and fitness, Nepal, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Scotland. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As I stated in the previous nomination, the subject clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG by receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Notable examples include a detailed articles in DNA (300+ words), an article by Time of India (350+ words), Business Standard, NDTV, Hindustan Times, and MidDay, among others. These are independent, reliable secondary sources that provide substantial detail about her career, publications, and public influence, not mere name-drops or trivial mentions. As WP:GNG states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. In this case, multiple substantial articles from mainstream publications combine to satisfy the notability criteria. Therefore, the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS ^💬 14:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see your comment on the previous nomination. Did you participate in the last AFD?

This DNA article you mentioned is non-bylined promotional article to advertise her personal training service.

The Times of India article is also clearly advertorial piece with a disclaimer "Disclaimer: This article was produced on behalf of Life Health Foods by Times Internet’s Spotlight team."

Business standard article is a book review without the name of the reviewer, clear promotion.

NDTV article is more focused on the Book and Salman Khan, not the subject of the article.

The Hindustan Times article is about the opinions of multiple people, and she got trivial coverage, fails Wp:SIGCOV.

midday article is just a photo gallery, without any critical assessment of her career.

This proves the article fails wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV both. Zuck28 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I did participate in the previous AfD, but regardless, notability is determined based on policy and the quality of sources, not continuity of participants. Regarding the sources: while it's fair to assess for promotional tone or disclaimers, dismissing all coverage as non-notable misapplies WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The DNA India article, which is over 300 words, discusses her career, influence, and clientele. The absence of an author byline does not disqualify its reliability or editorial status, as many editorial articles are unsigned unless marked as sponsored. As for the Business Standard article, it was written by journalist Asmita Aggarwal (credited by name), so the claim that it lacks one is factually incorrect. The article engages directly with her book and fitness philosophy, not simply as a product plug but in a substantive profile format. The NDTV piece, while it includes Salman Khan, is centered around Deanne Panday’s book launch and includes her quotes and ideas this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. Similarly, the Hindustan Times and Mid-Day articles offer independent mentions. Per WP:GNG, notability is assessed holistically. If depth in any one source is limited, multiple independent sources may be considered collectively. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, here are more in-depth, independent articles that further support her notability and provide substantial coverage suitable for expanding the article; Economic Times, India Today, HT, Indian Express, HT. In my view, these sources align with the requirements under WP:GNG and provide further opportunity to expand the article. GSS ^💬 16:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the Salman Khan reference is not a counter argument but perhaps the opposite, as it would ultimately demonstrate her importance as celebrities' fitness/well-being coach (as claimed), and thus the importance of keeping the article. Metamentalist (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metamentalist, Almost every celebrity is associated with some fitness/ wellness coach, according to your understanding does that make all of those coaches notable? Just because they’re associated with celebrities? See Wp:NOTINHERITED. Zuck28 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She has been associated with more than one, and has produced work in different media (books and DVDs) on the matter, she's not the "average" wellness coach. Metamentalist (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DNA article: As I see it no truly independent article would include things like the last two paragraphs listing pricing information; the sole purpose of that is to promote business to here, and means the article is by definition not independent.

The Times of India article (in addition to general concerns about the reliability/independence of this source) manages to not actually be significant coverage because all it says about her (as opposed to the fitness industry as a whole) is that she posted some stuff on instagram.

The Business Standard article comes closest and may be acceptable.

I agree with Zuck28 (and have nothing more to say) for the remaining three sources here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Agree with the nomination here. Notability is not established with significant professional sources. It is a gathering of mentions, routine coverage at best. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify why you consider these sources to lack significant coverage or to be routine mentions? The articles I provided above including the one from The Economic Times are detailed, full-length features that focus specifically on Deanne Panday’s work as a fitness author. They include original quotes, biographical context, and discussion of her professional influence, which seems to go beyond routine coverage.

I've also found additional in-depth coverage such as:

Times of India: An editorial piece focused on her fitness career and early start as a wellness coach, not gossip or routine reporting.
India.com: Another article with biographical depth highlighting her career journey, wellness philosophy, and professional associations.
ABP Live: While partly visual, it still includes contextual details about her work as a fitness trainer and author.
News18 Hindi: Offers background information in the context of her family, but also presents her personal achievements and fitness career.
News24 Hindi: Mentions her appearance in a music video, but within a broader frame of her public presence.

These sources provide in-depth coverage of her career and public contributions and not just passing mentions or celebrity gossip. Several include original reporting, and contextual depth. There appears to be enough to merit a broader look through WP:BEFORE if needed. Thank you, GSS ^💬 05:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India. Com article is primary source, written by the subject herself.

MSN article is a syndicated feed from a TOI interview, again a primary source.

News18: A photogallery with a tag of "agency", indicating a PR supply.

And News24Hindi article link is not working. Zuck28 (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that?

The India.com article was written by their journalist Kritika Vaid, not by the subject herself, so it's not a self-published or primary source.

The MSN article, I've already replaced it with the original from TOI. Also, it's not a direct interview it uses a few quotes, making it a secondary report rather than a primary one.

As for News18, the article was authored by journalist Versha, not labeled as PR. News18India is a legitimate media outlet under the News18 group, not a pr agency.

Lastly, here is the link to News24Hindi, edited by their journalist Nancy Tomar. You can't just simply dismiss every source just because you nominated the article for deletion. Each source should be evaluated on its own merits, not based on the outcome you’re hoping for. GSS ^💬 05:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zuck28: There was a third AfD for this, under a different spelling, which is why it doesn't show up in the header. GSS closed it as Keep. This was promptly overturned at DRV as a WP:BADNAC and relisted, at which point GSS voted "Strong Keep". Owen× ☎ 13:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to hear from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent a while above responding to a gish gallop of sources, most of which don't meet the criteria for one reason or another. But that misses the fundamental issue; I frankly don't care if two (or three, or however many the community expects) sources are presented that I can't immediately refute. That still won't change the fundamentally deeply suspicious situation behind this article (and this AfD, since I suspect GSS's comments above were made backwards; they started with the premise that this article should be kept, and tried to find sources to prove that premise), which combined with the known phenomenon of Paid news in India, makes it impossible to definitely establish that any source presented is truly independent of the subject. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am drawing these conclusions entirely from on-wiki behavior in this and the previous AfDs. I'm not aware of any off-wiki evidence, and I'll admit I kind of started with the premise that the article should be deleted because of that, but nothing seen above has convinced me otherwise. And the term "backwards" above is an analogy to Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note [7]. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: I will not respond to any counterargument GSS may make to this comment. No comment they make could possibly convince me to change my opinion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to engage with the sources and offer a detailed rationale. However, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion and would like to clarify a few points.

First, the notability should be assessed per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not based on speculation around possible motivations or generalized suspicion about the Indian media landscape. While it's valid to be cautious about paid news (a real concern), dismissing all coverage from reputable Indian publications on the mere possibility of promotional intent doesn't align with how Wikipedia evaluates notability.

You mention that you "frankly don't care" if there are two or more acceptable sources. But WP:N does care if multiple reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources exist that provide significant coverage of the subject, then notability is presumed. The burden is not on editors to prove absolute independence beyond all doubt, especially not when dealing with professionally edited media like The Economic Times, Business Standard, India Today, Hindustan Times, etc. These outlets are routinely accepted as reliable across thousands of articles on Wikipedia.

Moreover, some of the sources you've dismissed (such as the Business Standard piece) were incorrectly characterized earlier as lacking bylines or being promotional, when in fact they are properly attributed, independently written, and provide contextual analysis of the subject's work. The DNA India article is over 300 words and directly discusses subject's career trajectory and impact on the fitness industry. Even if it includes service details (as lifestyle pieces often do), this doesn't make it inherently promotional and certainly doesn't disqualify it per WP:RS.

The core of your argument seems to rest not just on source analysis but on distrust of the editing behavior involved ("backwards reasoning", "deeply suspicious situation"). But behavioral concerns should be dealt with via WP:SPI, WP:COI, or WP:UPE investigations, not by invalidating reliable sources or shifting the burden of proof.

Finally, I'd still welcome an explanation of how specific sources I provided above fail WP:SIGCOV. Simply labeling every article as "routine" or "PR" without a closer look at their content and context doesn't fairly reflect what GNG actually requires. Let's please keep the focus on content and sources. Wikipedia notability is policy-based, not suspicion-based. GSS ^💬 05:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. All of the sources are WP:NEWSORGINDIA which are known for their undisclosed paid reporting and reporting press releases as news. Most of the sources cited by GSS don't have bylines naming reporters or they are obvious promotional pieces. There is nothing notable about this subject. Utterly fails WP:NBIO. Koshuri ^(あ!) 05:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khasa dynasty and Kings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Needless fork of Khasa Kingdom. Good content could be merged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Nepal, and India. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Ixudi (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

khasa kingdom is different , and the kingdom who ruled by khasa race is different Imperial khasah (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is clearly in error. It's not a subtopic or fork of Khasa Kingdom. Khasa Kingdom was a specific kingdom in a specific place in a specific time period, which the list article claims would be but one entry in it, the Khasa people having established many kingdoms in various places throughout history. Per WP:AGF, I would suggest seeking a review from an expert (or working with the article creator and/or any experienced editor with access to all the sources) before moving to delete. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, absolutely terrible article that is an embarassment to Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – does not seem like a fork to me, as 'K Kingdom' is a political entity, while list lists rulers of a particular ethnicity. (List is pretty confusing though, maybe oughtta follow other 'Lists of monarchs' format with dynasties/houses being just a column in a single table/list of rulers?) – Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TNT. Dolphish (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:TNT is not a policy-supported deletion criterion, but an essay about rewriting an article about a notable topic. Notability is determined by sourcing, not by the quality of the prose here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a few spot-checks before I !voted and it checked out. No one has elaborated on their TNT votes and I can not figure out for myself, what it is that would make this one particularly unslavageable of the millions of subpar articles that we have. As I'd hinted above, it's a new editor; we should expect their creations to be subpar. That's part and partial to the model of Wikipedia that to my knowledge is still in effect. Aside from TNT not being policy and there being just as many counter-arguments to it as the page itself makes clear, this is not an article someone else is likely to create better and soon. Someone has searched through the literature to put together a list here that appears to be educational, in a topic area that is otherwise neglected. Are those sources bad? Is the article replete with hoaxes? Have the sources been misused? What? Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST, which states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The sources are clearly enough to meet WP:GNG, so the article can stand (with some cleaning up).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Proposed deletions

Pardeshi (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)
Zindagi Rocks (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)

Deletion review