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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 02:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Tân Thành District, Đồng Tháp

Tân Thành District, Đồng Tháp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No sources have been provided showing that this district actually exists. There is a township called Tân Thành in Lai Vung District of the same province as well as townships Tân Thành A and Tân Thành B in Tân Hồng District which is also in Đồng Tháp Province; but I can't find any source online that suggests that any of these have been made into a new district. The only source cited by the article is the list of districts on Statoids that includes Tân Thạnh District, Long An Province and Tân Thành District, Bà Rịa - Vũng Tàu, but no Tân Thành District in Đồng Tháp Province. The "corresponding article" linked to on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is about the one in Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu Province and I couldn't find any article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia about a Tân Thành District in Đồng Tháp Province or mentioning the existence of such a district. The content of the article has been copied from Lai Vung District and Tân Thành (township). Cobblet ( talk) 04:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:V per nom.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 08:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete A source has been added but I don't bleive it passes WP:RS and it is insufficient in any event to ring the WP:N bell. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The "source" was there to begin with. As I noted, it does not actually refer to the purported district. Cobblet ( talk) 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for failing verification. The name is not in the source given and neither in the official source the website referred. This should be deleted ASAP. – Ammarpad ( talk) 02:28, 28 November 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.