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. Consensus was a clear keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Payam ud Din Reshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Practically unsourced hagiography. Needs a full rewrite to become an acceptable article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rewrite: A rewrite is required. Ayub407^talk 17:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG just from looking at the sources from within the article. Is the subject of numerous books on travel and history. Also meets WP:GEOLAND. Just because an article needs re-writing and substantial work done in order to bring it "up to par", doesn't mean that it should be listed for AfD. If you want to WP:TNT an article, just edit it from the latest revision, re-write it from scratch, and save the re-write. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Template There is no specific reason to add deletion templates on this page. This page is verifiable and true facts listed in it. Thank you--178.152.19.214 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Clearly meets WP:NGEO AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Its notable, as said above. --Human3015^TALK  23:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obvious notability. A 480-year-old tomb! Article quality is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2015 (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.