Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kantha vibhag

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. I'll assume that "weird" means "not opposed to deletion". If better sources are found, WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kantha vibhag

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Lack of news coverage and couldn't find any such area listed in the census. According to Google Translate, 'Kantha vibhag' means 'Coastal department'. Cesdeva (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is weird. The creator says it is a "small town" in their edit summary but the two (related) websites they use refer to Kantha Vibhag Navsari area and suggest, as Cesdeva intimates, something other than a town. I wonder if this is someone trying to promote that website, which seems to have a worthy environmental objective but isn't necessarily referring to a populated place etc. I, too, have struggled to find it in census records. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: It sure is strange. I'm beginning to question whether the machine-translation of 'Kantha vibhag' was too literal, and that perhaps it has more equivalency to the English term '(the) seaside'.

The sudden cessation of editing by the page creator also adds to the mystery. Anyway I think we've entered a cul-de-sac. Cesdeva (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird--Wot Sitush sez. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: We appear to have reached a unanimous consensus that this article is weird. Cesdeva (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2018 (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.