Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sibu Town Mosque


 * 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. Due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sibu Town Mosque

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. mosques like churches are not inherently notable. I can't see it being historically significant as it is not old as it opened in 1983. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - because it also has a prominent mausoleum; I've worked on a number of articles about cemeteries etc and they seem to pass GNG if they have anyone prominent buried there. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * .it will pass GNG if it has significant coverage. It doesn't appear to have that coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: It's a pretty article, and it's well written, comparatively, but it is still essentially a testimony to a particular house of worship that doesn't have significance attested inside the article. Therefore, while I like the effort of the author (esp. compared to "is a phylum of insect" auto-content article), it's a non-notability delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches found no significant and notable coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  00:42, 29 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.