- 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. Nakon 04:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unijerina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not seeing any notability for a village of just 9 people, Slatersteven ( talk) 10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Other nearby villages have their articles, and this particular one already has articles on 7 other wikis. It had 10 times larger population in 1945, but has suffered from migration flows, like the whole region. Many villages in remote areas are facing the outflows of population, but does this mean that the memory of their existence must be erased as well? Unlike you, I don't think so. Sideshow Bob 13:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." Spinning Spark 16:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- 'Commnent this seems to indicate that there is some interest in the geology around there. Spinning Spark 16:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 07:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Spinningspark and common sense. Any village, however small, with several interwiki links, deserves to be on EN Wiki too.-- Darwinek ( talk) 00:19, 8 February 2018 (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.
- 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. Nakon 04:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unijerina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not seeing any notability for a village of just 9 people, Slatersteven ( talk) 10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Other nearby villages have their articles, and this particular one already has articles on 7 other wikis. It had 10 times larger population in 1945, but has suffered from migration flows, like the whole region. Many villages in remote areas are facing the outflows of population, but does this mean that the memory of their existence must be erased as well? Unlike you, I don't think so. Sideshow Bob 13:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." Spinning Spark 16:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- 'Commnent this seems to indicate that there is some interest in the geology around there. Spinning Spark 16:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 07:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Spinningspark and common sense. Any village, however small, with several interwiki links, deserves to be on EN Wiki too.-- Darwinek ( talk) 00:19, 8 February 2018 (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.