Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pečenci

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pečenci[edit]

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

Not notable Tylr00 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Villages are generally considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there published secondary source data with which we could build an article Tylr00 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. It exists, it's inhabited and listed in census. No such user (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly. Smartyllama (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND and per lack of a valid rationale for deletion. Cavarrone 07:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - It's a population center as per GEOLAND and even legally recognized as such. --Oakshade (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2016 (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.