Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laxmi Kanto Babur Bari

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmi Kanto Babur Bari[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Searches turned up zero. The current single source in the article is not about this building. Has been knocked around, sent back to draft, returned to mainspace, all without significant improvement. Without sourcing, does not meet any notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's worth having a look at the discussion at Talk:Laxmi Kanto Babur Bari. This could be notable but lacks the evidence for me to actually put in a keep vote, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiderone, good point. I read that before nominating, as there was very little improvement in the article, despite that conversation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's a shame it didn't stay in draft, really. If this ends up being kept, I would strongly suggest deleting all of the OR, which is about 95% of the current article, unless someone manages to find sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, actually, since the current source doesn't refer to this particular building, the entire current article is unsourced. And I agree, it should have remained in draftspace to be worked on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to issues with verifiability, I can't think of a good reason for keeping the article. If sources can be found, I'll happily vote keep Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 29 January 2021 (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.