Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal


 * 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 Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Greater Nepal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An article on a supposed irrendetist feeling amongst Nepalis. Sourcing for this concept is clearly faulty. describes rumours of literature used during armed conflict, I personally smell a psy-op there. is an interview with one lecturer. The details on the Anglo-Nepalese treaty and how this treaty is being viewed can be covered in the article on the treaty itself.

This is a politically sensitive subject, since this notion is being used against people of Nepali origin in India. It is not a demand that has any real backing in Nepalese politics, though. Soman (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A google search for "greater nepal" produced 526,000 results!Shalimer (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment for me, googling gave 3250 results, out of whom only 198 were not filtered as "omitted some entries very similar to the 198 already displayed". Notably large amounts google-hits are blog/forum comments, rants regarding Prashant Tamang, wiki mirrors, etc.. I'm not saying that the term has never been used in political life, but I dispute whether this is a real political concept and not just paranoia from Indian newsmedia and Bhutanese government. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right! i searched without commas "". But you do get Hindustan Times and Times of IndiaTimes of India Shalimer (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The subject is clearly notable. It's lacking sources, but that's no reason to delete. PeterSymonds |  talk  09:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete : This is a baseless propoganda by some unknown groups . The references are some personal blogs only - Tinucherian (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Tinucherian (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Every irredentist cliam will ruffle some else's feathers. There are many simmilar articles (see List of irredentist claims or disputes). The validity of the claims or its improbability is not a matter of debate for its inclusion. Greater Nepal has been mentioned in Indian newspapers too. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment : The references are confined to a few blogs and just a lecturer's interview. The leader of Maoists of Nepal Prachanda says that Greater Nepal was a "media-created stunt." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1273683.cms


 * Keep a GBS search convinces me but we do need better references in the article. gren グレン 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I have yet to read and understand the deletion policy, but this seems to be a ridiculous proposal. (a) it is about the basic concept of "Greater Nepal" that existed prior to the Sagauli treaty, and (b) that it has some bearing in Nepali politics, as the issue of Maoist propaganda suggests. It may not be mainsteam in Nepali politics, but its there. Vishnava (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't get what's so bad about the sources and why its neutrality is disputed - its Nepali and Indian newspapers, not blog or personal sites. And the article is brief and to the point - it describes the pre-Sagauli Nepal and why the "Greater Nepal" concept exists and what currency it has in Nepali politics. There is no judgement being made about whether the claims are right or wrong. Vishnava (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And the point about "paranoia" in Indian media - if it exists, its a notable fact, isn't it? That point of view is also represented in the article, which does not insist that it is part of mainstream Nepali politics. So why the deletion? It has been duly noted in the article that some consider that the Indian media is paranoid about this. Vishnava (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admins : Vishnava is the author of this aricle 
 * Comment: Neither Wikipedia policy nor guidelines forbid article creators from participating in AfD discussions or direct closing admins to discount their arguments if they do. Such debates are evaluated on the merits.  That aside, there is a crucial flaw in the Delete proponents' argument: that this isn't a serious, legitimate Nepali movement.  Stipulating so (which I don't), it's irrelevant; Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles about fringe movements, crackpots, pseudoscience, fallacies and the like.  The guiding premise to whether an article can be included in Wikipedia is whether it is verifiable.  If this concept is discussed, if that discussion can be verified, then that meets WP:V.    RGTraynor  16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Quite aside from the arguments given above, there is also a strong thread in the region of nationalist trouble stemming from Nepalese immigration to Bhutan and adjacent Indian states such as Assam, Bihar, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. This is more than POV-pushing.    RGTraynor  13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is written with NPOV tone in mind with disclaimer type words throughout like "some", "in the opinion of Nepali nationalists". The article was reviewed by WP:DYK editors and placed in the Next Update without comment. Times of India is certainly a reliable source. I am not familiar with the Telegraph Nepal source, so I can't comment on it's reliability or the motives of its editors (if any). They claim to be an academic newspaper. If so, then they would be a reliable source. More reliable sources would be very helpful. Note that User:Vishnava did significant writing for this article. Royal broil  13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment : Times of India is a reliable source. But as per the article, It rubbishes the information. "This, after their supreme leader Prachanda claimed in a recent interview with TOI that Greater Nepal was a "media-created stunt."
 * An attempt to delete the AFD tag with a hidden IP address was noticed and the changes were reverted See here - Tinucherian (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – Seems notable; but certainly needs better referencing. Doesn't deserve to be deleted. - KNM Talk 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The boundary of Nepal was bigger than it is today, also the idea of greater Nepal is supported by some Nepalese nationalists (but not all of the Nepalese people) - the article makes this clear and has reliable sources. Also the article does not seem to influenced by Nepalese nationalist POV, seem quite matter of fact and NPOV really. Pahari Sahib  16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The aricle is informative, unbiased, to the point and of relevance to the academia. It may be retained and linked with the article on History of Nepal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki dr mahmad (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but has to be improved, clearly. — Nightstallion 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears to be a legitimate topic for a WP article.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and referenced, NPOV. Yopie 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Notable, interesting and sourced.Biophys (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep.seems like an informative article. If I was to read "Greater Nepal" in a newspaper I would have to search in wikipedia to find out what it meant. This article tells me exactly that. Weather it is a "good" or "bad" concept is somthing I can decide for myself, but I need wikipedia to tell me what the concept is.Petethewhistle (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)petethewhistle


 * 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.