Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dibor Dighi


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have moved the page to Dibar Dighi which is the spelling used in all sources. Kraxler (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dibor Dighi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All of the sources used are unreliable blog, forum etc and failed to prove significance of the place. Rahat (Message) 20:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete unless greatly improved with reliable sources. Even the map in the article fiels to conform to the text as to where the place is.  I cannot imagine what an archaeological pond is.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of WP:NGEO, as locations are generally kept. Book link above yields some hits, so assume an actual dig site ("archeological pond", I presume, means under water). Tourist-trap fluff text will have to go. Pax 07:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It pains me to say so. The article should have been speedily deleted on day one as a copyright violation. It only got worse as the author copied in (without attribution) irrelevant material from Somapura Mahavihara. Almost everything in the article was wrong, including the location. All that said, it is a notable historic tank (manmade pond or reservoir) as evidenced by the sources I've added to the article: A chapter in the encyclopedia Banglapedia, two scholarly books, and the announcement of its protection under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act back when it was part of British India. Worldbruce (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources that have been added, which definitely seem to indicate that it is an archaeological site of regional significance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2015 (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.