Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khtum Reay Lech

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. I have to agree with the "keep" !voters here. I don't see a strong enough consensus to make an exception to our longstanding tradition of keeping such articles. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khtum Reay Lech

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

Very short article that does not indicate why "Khtum Reay Lech" is important or notable. CyanGardevoir 08:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a village, and by editor consensus, villages are notable regardless of size. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But villages still have to verifiably exist before they can be considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia's geographic notability guideline states the following: "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low." After searching on several online maps, I cannot find the village. In Cambodia, villages are part of communes, which are part of districts, which are part of provinces. The village is mentioned in the articles for Bat Trang Commune and Mongkol Borei District. I believe that the village exists based on this source, but with its mention in two other articles, minimal information about Khtum Reay Lech on its own page, and no other claim to notability, I don't think that we need this article. NJ Wine (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the village's existiance can be verified, Wikipedia's remit as a gazeteer calls for the article to be retained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 22:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The usual situation for a village. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NJ Wine. it can always be recreated if sufficient info comes to light. Given that Northamerica1000 has not dug up links it must be a pretty minor location. Lets not forget that we are quibbling about an "article" that contains one damn sentence. Please realise that deletion is not permanent. The article can alway be recreated at a later stage. We are wasting out time here (he says without a hint of irony). There are thousands of other article that need creating that are far more important than this one. Think about context, rationality, cost-benefit analysis, the Big Picture. ...sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The timewasting is caused by this not being automatically closed as "keep" once a reliable source was found. The cost-benefit analysis is that it would take more work to recreate this from scratch rather than leave it alone for people to improve if and when they find more sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Any settlement like this is notable enough. We have articles on all the villages of Australia, then why not Cambodia. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:23, 16 June 2012 (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.