Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Breuil-sous-Argenton


 * 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) – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Le Breuil-sous-Argenton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This commune no longer exists and does not seems to itself be notable. There were a number of news articles from Ouest France that seem to mention the towns name but it doesn't seem to bring notability to the town itself. TartarTorte 02:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * May pass GEOLAND, but IAR merge with Argentonnay as the existing commune which therefore has potential to grow beyond perma stub and help the reader find what they're looking for. When, why did they merge, etc? Star   Mississippi  03:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Change to Keep per subsequent edits.  Star   Mississippi  15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as it meets WP:V, I don't see how it does not meet WP:GEOLAND, and notability does not expire. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because the overall administrative unit it belongs to has changed doesn't change the fact that the main village has a long history in its own right and remains notable. I've destubbed it. I'm sure you could delve into its history in local libraries within this region. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Still exists as a delegated commune, meets WP:GEOLAND, and is not a stub anymore. Markussep Talk 15:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:DEFUNCTS, municipicalities are always notable regardless of if they still exist and anyway the settlement still exists. Defunct divisions should not generally be deleted or merged similar to Gamblesby parish being merged into Glassonby but we still keep separate articles.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as an acknowledged settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND and NTEMP. (It appears to be snowing in here.) casualdejekyll  17:08, 16 February 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.