Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gol Talab


 * 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. Seems there's a few stories on it and as noted below heritage site's are notable anyway. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Gol Talab

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Places are not inherently notable. Both references listed on this page only mention the term "Gol Talab" and the second one only mentions "talab"; none of which reference where this particular talab even is. When searching for this one on google; I found a few tumblr and pinterest links; but nothing of substantial value. Yeah, the locals might think this is notable; but it doesn't meet guidelines for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GEOLAND completely. The Undead Never Die (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - If a Wikipedian throws a rock into a pond and it splashes but there's nobody to hear it because the article was deleted, does it make a sound? Anyways, this clearly is barely notable if notable at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a backlash because of Articles for deletion/Vineta-Festspiele .♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hardly. I might have noticed the article due to your attacks causing me to look at your edit history; but the nomination is simply because the article fails to be notable. The Undead Never Die (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was nominated as a backlash because I dared state that you're acting like a fool on a festival which easily passes GNG.♦  Dr. Blofeld  08:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what goes on inside of The Undead Never Die's head, and I honestly don't really care. I just don't find this body of water to be really worth having an article about. Just because some place has a particularly recognized cultural heritage doesn't mean that it deserves an article. One can point to dozens upon dozens of Wikipedia articles on people, on ideas, on objects, etc that in the body text refer to some place of heritage that's involved. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr. Blofeld, your talk page is where this article first caught my sight. It had been subject to a PROD which you hastily deleted saying you don't do prod. So I took it to AfD. As for it being a heritage site; show me where heritage sites are notable. Also, show me where this is mentioned as a heritage site. What makes this different than any other pond across the globe? The sources for that article are two words in two different books and one short youtube video. The Undead Never Die (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not any old pond like some pond in rural England. It's a man made structure in the heart of urban Old Dhaka which has historical significance to the locals and has thus been given official heritage status.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the new sources have been added, there are now a few more sources that just literally list the name "Gol Talab" and go into zero detail about it what-so-ever. There is a travel guide, which is just what it sounds like, and the other sources, i.e., the DCC source, has the most vague list of their sites. (For example; they list "Rose Garden") Two of the sites claim different ownership over this pond also. I see no mention anywhere, that is has been officially been given a heritage status by any government figure. Just random people talking about it; or just random people mentioning it without going into depth about it. The Undead Never Die (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whenever I look at a deletion candidate I think "Would the encyclopedia be better off without it?". I believe we're stronger as a resource having it. A good percentage of topics don't have a mass of coverage but are mentioned in enough sources to make them worthy of inclusion.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on the sources. Are they reliable? Are they user driven or created through paid staff? Not one source has done more than mention this as a place that exists. Existence alone isn't notable. The Undead Never Die (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep It's listed as an official heritage site. Heritage sites are notable and this has enough sources to meet GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is it listed as a heritage site? As far as I can tell it's a pond, named "Pond", most of the references just mention it as being there. Actually one of the references say that the buildings near it weren't recognized as heritage sites because reasons.--Savonneux (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOLAND Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable. That source specifically says:
 * "The City Development Committee has listed ... 93 structures and sites considering their historical, aesthetic, scientific, social, cultural, religious, political and heritage value."
 * The local city is obviously not national. It also lists it simply by name which fails which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available.--Savonneux (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's exactly this sort of thing why people give up editing wikipedia you know. Wikipedia seems to attract a certain type of person who once they make their mind up about something will twist everything to go against something/somebody. Protected monuments on any level are notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is forcing you to stay here Dr. Blofeld, but keep using the verbiage you have been and there will be a warning following them shortly. As far as the "City Development Committee" naming heritage sites; I don't buy that. It's not an elected official, it's a group of, more than likely, random locals who gathered to complain to the government. The Undead Never Die (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no vested interest in this. I haven't even voted in this AfD yet. I'm just pointing out the guidelines.--Savonneux (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The City Development Committee, headed by the housing and public works secretary, has listed a total of 93 structures and sites considering their historical, aesthetic, scientific, social, cultural, religious, political and heritage value." That's what the source says.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And it goes on to say "However, neither Rajuk nor the DCC took any steps to introduce the concept of ‘Transfer of Development Right’ to compensate the private owners of the listed heritage properties and persuade them to cooperate with the conservation move." So these sites are privately owned; and their ability to become a heritage site lies in the owner by the looks of the article. The Undead Never Die (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's Bangladesh ;-).♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If all professional footballers are considered notable, then all heritage sites should be as well. This easily passed GNG. RO (talk)  20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF--Savonneux (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GNG is an actual policy, so I'm not sure how this essay trumps my keep vote. RO (talk)  19:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Another one that passes GNG and is backed up by reliable secondary sources. For the subject matter, I would consider all heritage sites notable. JAG  UAR   00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * KeepThe pond has been studied in detail by faculty of the local university and most aspects related to any lake article in WP has been covered now.-- Nvvchar . 00:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the "studied in detail" to which he refers "Ward : 73•Age:200yrs•Area: 2.23acr•Depth: 23 ft•Ownership:Private"--Savonneux (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasoning of Jaguar. By doing a Google search I see a lot of coverage by different sources.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:46, 24 August 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.