Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masaili

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masaili

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable village in Nepal. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Mass-created article by Dr. Blofeld. The location given in the article is an empty field. Only two sources are provided in the article - a link to a UN map of village development committees in the Sarlahi district, and a link to the Nepalese census website. The UN website is a 404 link. The Nepalese census website lists a location called Masaili as a Village Development Committee in Sarlahi district. Clicking through the various boxes gives you a text-file output such as this:

Nepal Census Data 2001: Population 1991

vdc_id 3486

vdc_name Masaili

district_name Sarlahi

total_house 528

total_pop 3072

This fails WP:GEOLAND as sourcing for the following reasons -

1) WP:NGEO explicitly excludes tables (and maps) from supporting the notability of geographical entities.

2) Including this content, the only content that can be reliably supported here, violates WP:NOTDATABASE.

3) Writing an article based on this article content would result in a geographical dictionary entry, which would violate WP:DICT.

4) There is no evidence that a "village development committee" is a populated place having legal recognition. It appears to be a low-level census-taking area which is excluded from WP:GEOLAND.

~~Nothing further was found in my WP:BEFORE, so Delete it is. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Flip to Keep based on Aymatth2's Nepalese news sources. Whilst I maintain that pure statistical sources are not sufficient to show notability under NGEO, this does appear to be an actual village that is legally recognised rather than just a statistical-counting unit. The article should be edited so as to recite a village as well as a (former) VDC. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Village development committee (Nepal) was similar to a municipality but with greater public-government interaction and administration. Each VDC was divided into wards. In 2017 the VDCs were reorganized into rural municipalities. Some merging and splitting was done in the process. Masaili VDC was reduced in size and downgraded to a village. Nominator, who was blocked on April 29, must understand this. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A verifiable populated place with over 4000 people verifiable in book sources like this. This was a former VDC, an official subdivision of a country, not some tiny hamlet in the middle of nowhere. It has its own mosques and schools. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This a frivolous nomination. Per WP:NPLACE, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. A search on मुसैली shows plenty of results, as one would expect of a place of this size. Even the village pond has been in the news: [1], [2], [3]. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep appears in 2011 census with population of 5,190 [4] (p.28). As above, passes WP:GEOLAND. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2023 (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.