Mengbi: In November 2015, Mengbi Township and Shuitianba Township were administratively merged to form Shuitianba Town.  Therefore, this location no longer exists.  I believe this entry meets Wikipedia's deletion policy, specifically criterion ten: Redundant or otherwise useless templates.  Hence, I suggest deleting this entry.  WYRRRR ( talk ) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  WYRRRR ( talk ) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I expanded the article with an infobox and references from the corresponding article in Chinese.  Even if two townships have been amalgamated, an article about the structure prior to amalgamation can be valuable.  Once notable, always notable.  A populated place can be notable whether it is a small part of a municipality or occupies several municipalities.  I don't know whether Mengbi is a township, a town, or both, and what the definition of those terms is in China.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep unless somebody can offer a better deletion rationale than this, and/or redirect to an article about Shuitianba if somebody can be bothered to make one.  Firstly, this isn't a template , so deletion criteria for templates have nothing to do with whether it's keepable or not — and secondly, we don't automatically delete articles about things that formerly existed just because they don't still exist now .  If we really just couldn't find anything more to say about Mengbi than just "it's a place that existed", then redirecting it to an article about Shuitianba could be viable if we had one, but we don't delete articles about places just because they've been merged into other places, because people might very well still want or need information about what Mengbi was .  We're an encyclopedia, not just a directory of currently-existing things — defunct things still have legitimate reasons why people might be looking for information about them, so defunctness is not a deletion rationale in and of itself.  We can redirect to the successor entity if there's really just not that much to say, but we don't delete articles just because the topic was merged into something else.  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bearcat Perhaps your argument #2 can be strenghtened by mentioning Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ?  As for #1, the correct notability guideline would probably be Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) .  It would be good to consider whether this entity meets this one.  The current sourcing is still pretty poor.  Once notable always notable - sure, but was this ever notable?  Piotrus at Hanyang | reply here 04:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I think this article needs more discussion, not based on the deletion rationale but on the Piotrus' question about whether this location, prior to it's Merge, was notable.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Townships are a legal type of administrative division in China, so this would be notable via WP:GEOLAND .  I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, but the article for the new township needs to be created first.  Jumpytoo Talk 02:04, 22 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep