Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhyaka Lohan


 * 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. Due to limited participation in this discussion, WP:REFUND applies. However, I believe has made a strong argument for the insufficiency of the existing known sources. I would expect anyone recreating this article to make substantial, well-cited improvements so as not to end up right back here. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Chhyaka Lohan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A macguffin for spam and POV pushing. I don't see how any sources could be talking about the subject, based on the article, and the titles of sources. Extraordinary claims are made without a single RS provided to support them. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 15:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 15:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - You say that based on the titles of the sources, they do not appear to be talking about the subject. My question then is: did you read the sources? I would say it is good practice to make sure the sources do not mention the subject before nominating an article for deletion. (I can't read the sources due to the language barrier.) --MrClog (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did. The claims made are too extraordinary, for me not to. I strongly suspected that these kinds of articles had survived here because everyone was afraid to question it, due to language barrier, so I lost accuracy in my words. I only meant to say the context itself should make it clear that this is a crap article used for spam. Note 1 and 2 (in English) don't talk about the stone. Notes 7,8 and 9 are blogpost and wordpress blogs. The rest have their own domain but that's about the extent of their credibility. I don't understand the language of notes 3 to 7 in precise details but I understand enough to know what they are talking about. They essentially say the same things as notes 8 and 9. Note 9 is in English. There isn't more detail in the other language sources than what is offered there, i.e. there's a stone in Kirtipur, which is seen as a symbol of Gorkha aggression. It's used as a rallying point for anti-Gorkha activism. All of these sources have a strong anti-Khas and pro-Newa nationalist bias. There are no RS provided to verify the devilish picture painted of the Gorkhas in the article. In absence of RS, there isn't even a way to tell that this is not a hoax created by Newaa nationalists.  Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 18:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The pure fact that it's controversial and a lightning rod for nationalist POV-pushing doesn't justify deletion, and on the face of it "a stone in Kirtipur, which is seen as a symbol of Gorkha aggression" could be a notable subject. The article can easily just say that. But the coverage in RS seems to be extremely slim. In English, at least, there's almost nothing. In the sources on the article, the link in note 6 is broken, so leaving aside the blogs the only reliable source that describes the rock seems to be note 3—which is also all I can find on Google, and is just a short mention—and possibly the Lahana News and the Nepalbhasa Times (notes 4 and 7). I don't speak the language so I'm open to changing my mind if someone can clarify the content of those two sources, or turn up alternative RS. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- This is a poor article, but on a potentially notable subject. It needs a lot of editing, as it appears to be partly a COATHANGER.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment At least one RS source on the dispute over the treatment of the conquered exists, though I am not comfortable adding it to the article as I can only view it in snippet form: Kumar Pradhan (1991), The Gorkha Conquests: The Process and Consequences of the Unification of Nepal, with Particular Reference to Eastern Nepal, Oxford University Press. There may be enough here for a weak keep with the Kathmandu Post reference I added earlier, as I can not evaluate the Nepali sources myself and assuming good faith. Another possibility might be merging to Battle of Kirtipur in an "Occupation and commemoration" or "Modern interpretations" or such section. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the dispute over whether the noses/ears/lips of the invaded were cut, exists. I once watched an interview of a prominent Nepali historian who said -- some European had given a first-hand account of having seen the crime, while another visiting only a few years later didn't report seeing anyone with deformed face, raising doubt, since not all of the population could have died out in so short a time, meaning either it didn't happen or was vastly exaggerated. Your google book seems to hint toward the same kind of dispute over whether it did happen and how widespread it was. However, that would be immaterial to this discussion, which is about a stone and its notability. I don't see sources that talk about the controversies surrounding the annexation of Kirtipur talking about this stone. Indeed, a stone that symbolises an event should at least make an appearance as passing mentions at the anniversary of the battle every year. I don't see anything like that. What I see is a fringe section of the very recent Newaa nationalism movement trying to spread hate through the use of blogs. And one of them being able to get the stone mentioned in a national newspaper once. That's why it fails notability. If there was a historical significance (and not a recent nationalist reinterpretation or co-optation), we should expect to see the sources. The burden of proof lies on the article, especially when it makes extraordinary claims. If sources surface to prove that this is not fake news, the article can always be recreated. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 16:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a bit lost here (and I'm guessing a closing admin/editor will probably get lost as well...) Just to be clear:
 * There's a dispute about whether some historical atrocities happened.
 * This article is about a stone which is a memorial of those atrocities.
 * There are various sources discussing the atrocities, but not the stone.
 * The only RS referring to the stone in English is the Kathmandu Post article.
 * There might be some non-English sources that talk about it, but we don't know. (?)
 * Does that sum it up? On the face of it, I can't see how The Gorkha Conquests would add anything to the notability of this article if it doesn't mention the actual topic. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 02:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * More or less. Let me try my own words:
 * There is a dispute about whether atrocities happened. Deniers have the lower ground.
 * There is a dispute over how widespread the atrocities were. Those who claim it was very limited have the high ground.
 * It is almost certain the stone is real. It is very likely it's a symbol of Kirtipur's broken pride. It is quite likely it's a symbol of resentment toward the historical Gorkhas for the humiliation.
 * It is not clear, if there is resentment towards the historical Gorkhas, that it's because of the widespread acceptance of the narrative of widespread atrocities, as opposed to a simple resentment for historical embarrassment and humiliation.
 * It is not at all clear that this hatred translates to anti-Gorkha or anti-Khas sentiment among the people in the present day, as it is being implied.
 * It is not clear what the percentage of people is, in Kirtipur, who take any of it seriously.
 * We have no sources to tell us exactly what it stands for- Kirtipur's broken pride, symbol of humiliation, monument to atrocities, memorial of the victims, symbol of resentment of historical Gorkha, symbol of resentment of present day Khas people. Notice that the other blog in English says it's venerated with butterlamps as a memorial to the fallen, while the OpEd says it's spit on.
 * The article was written by a Newar nationalist sock-farm with a clear bias against the Gorkhas ,(which has been blocked now), using their own blogs and other biased non-credible sources, and a few RS bombs that don't mention the subject at all (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RukshanaNewa).
 * The only RS was added by someone else after it came to AfD. That is also an OpEd by a self-reported student of Nepali history based in London (not even claiming local familiarity).
 * This stone doesn't seem to appear in historical sources even though Newar as well as other Nepali and Indian historians have been working freely for at least the past 50 years. And makes a sudden appearance with the birth of xenophobic Newar nationalism in the last decade.
 * Writing anything other than "It is most likely a real stone in Kirtipur of potential historical significance" is impossible with the sources that we have. We shouldn't have an article on a subject that doesn't have RS to support content but has been a forum for plenty of POV pushing spammers to spread misinformation and continues to be.
 * So, it should be deleted until such time as reliable and academic sources appear so that any editor unfamiliar with the subject has sufficient ground from which to keep those spammers and POV pushers in check. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 10:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.