Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simle
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Simle
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Simle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page title is likely a misspelling of
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep A placename with confirmed addresses within it and +5k people shouldn't be deleted, and a simple hatnote takes care of the spelling issue with "simple", "smile", or "simile". chatter) 00:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)]
- Populated places are not inherently notable. I did not find significant coverage of the village in reliable sources. All search results are about something else named "Simle". I do not understand your argument at all. Even if the village is notable, it is clearly not the ]
- Comment Your argument that 'people misspell a word and come here' is fixed with a simple chatter) 03:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)]
- Comment Your argument that 'people misspell a word and come here' is fixed with a simple
- Keep. Google News search for "simle" "nepal" shows plenty of local news for the area. Also, the first point in WP:NPLACE justifies an article even by itself. — Gmarmstrong (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)]
- Keep Seems to meet WP:NPLACE. Retinalsummer (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)]
- This needs expert examination. There may be a place called Simle on the map, but since I can't read the language, I can't verify that. However, according to the article on village development committees, they no longer exist. So is this something that used to exist and doesn't any more, or should it be described as something different? Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Even if they no longer exist the N for the community doesn't expire so there's likely a different definition we can put it under. chatter) 22:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)]
- Comment I've added details about what it's now part of to the article; the chatter) 23:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)]
- Comment I've added details about what it's now part of to the article; the
- Comment Even if they no longer exist the N for the community doesn't expire so there's likely a different definition we can put it under.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep:Populated & legally recognized place, so meets )
- Keep it seems to be a village and former division with census data so is probably inherently notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2022 (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.