Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taleb Mohammed Lodi Jame Mosjid

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. Courcelles 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb Mohammed Lodi Jame Mosjid

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

No reference and failed notability; a related article was already deleted here ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. Pehaps it's famous in Mathiura but both Google and Yahoo! only found a 123people and Wikipedia link (this article), not my idea of notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Whilst I have strong misgivings about this article's qualities, the brief mention of the subject tells me that it may be notable, but may also be a victim of systematic bias. However, we do not know what it's called in its native language, or whether the Anglicised name is the most common or even correctly spelt. Fault of which I would agree to delete.there are no sources on line. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:46, 3 August 2011 (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.