Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gol talab,bangladesh

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gol talab,bangladesh[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability I am frankly not sure what assertion of notability is being made with this article, if any at all, but I personally cannot discern the notability, at least from the article as written. In addition, unsourced. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Islampur article. Seems to be similar to Diss Mere, which is covered in the relevant town article. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You should note that Islampur is a disambiguation page. And there is no entry for an Islampur in Bangladesh on that page. A careful reading of the page will reveal that this is actually in Dhaka, but as per my comment below, there is no compelling reason for merging. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for lack of any sourced content that could be salvaged. This entire article reads like a travel guide full of the author's personal musings on the topic and fails our core content policy. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this content is worth merging, as it is an unsourced travel guide. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article appears to have been cobbled together using much of the same text as a blog post and has been tagged a a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The copyvio is probably of little import at this point. The AfD expires tomorrow and looks like a consensus delete. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it expires today. Safiel (talk) 04:03, 2 May 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.