Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrchojedy

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. ✗plicit 13:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrchojedy

[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)

Insignificant village, fails WP:GEOLAND#2. I suggest to rewrite as redirect to the municipality of Samopše, which includes this village. FromCzech (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Samopše and Mrchojedy were presumably separate legal entities at some point, correct? If the dates on Czech wiki are to be believed, both villages were founded near the start of the 14th century. I think there is a potentially long history where they were considered legally distinct villages, which would satisfy WP:GEOLAND. What sources could we find that would establish this? Mbdfar (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech Republic is very fragmented into small municipalities and further fragmentation is unjustified. Basically every village was a separate legal entity at some point of the history, every village has some year of the first written mention, but that does not make them significant enough to separate them from a municipality. Most of these small villages share their destiny and owners with the closest larger settlement, so their history can be easily merged with the history of the municipality. As far as Mrchojedy is concerned, I have no idea about the Middle Ages, but after the revolution in 1848 it was never a separate legal entity and it is permanently connected with Samopše.

In the terms of the Czech Republic, there are only rare examples when villages have their own page and are not a municipality. For example in Kutná Hora District, there is about 200 villages, but only two of them (Mrchojedy and Vraník) have separate pages from the municipalities, most likely only because they appeared in Kingdom Come: Deliverance, and that is no reason to keep them. FromCzech (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't WP:NTEMP apply if the villages were historically legally distinct? Mbdfar (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why not just boldly merge into Samopše, which seems to be what the nom wants to happen anyway? Jdcooper (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement separate from Samopše (see its sign), even if it is within the municipality, so per WP:GEOLAND it is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has its own population so I think it satisfies GEOLAND#1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and NTEMP should apply regardless. Mbdfar (talk)
Keep per WP:GEOLAND #1, as it is legally recognized place (see [1]). Also covered by multiple independent reliable sources - for example in Zavadil, Antonín Josef (2000). Kutnohorsko slovem i obrazem. Díl druhý, část 2, Uhlířskojanovicko. Sešit B, Kopaniny - Samopše (Vyd. 2 ed.). Kutná Hora: Kuttna. ISBN 80-86406-18-0. or in Otto's encyclopedia (17th volume). Jklamo (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2022 (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.