Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Kanpur

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. If the related articles are also suspicious, we should have AfDs for those so enough consensus can be reached. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Kanpur

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

Fails the first criterion of WP: GEOLAND, that is to say it has no mention on the websites of Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh, so in all probability isn't a legally recognized place.

Plus, the article is unreferenced, contains an enormous amount of Original Research, the content is largely false, as both sides of Kanpur come under Kanpur Municipal Corporation, Kanpur Nagar district and Kanpur division.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 11:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is totally inaccurate information. West Kanpur is a conjectural name and there is no use of "West Kanpur" as a term in sources. I don't even know how they got the population and literacy rate statistics. I wasn't able to find in the census database. I agree with SshibumXZ that this is Original Research and it should be deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found North Kanpur, East Kanpur and West Kanpur. I am not very sure if these are original research. If they are, I will be willing to support deletion as well.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2017 (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.