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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vinica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Most of it is not encyclopaedic, the remaining parts are of a too low standard and the violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style are beyond salvageable. Law Lord (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom. The nom has only provided reasons to improve this article about a verified town [1], not delete it.--Oakshade (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be condescending. I would advice you to remember that humour often does not read as intended when written instead of being spoken. Writing "Keep per nom." may have been your attempt of being funny, but I read it as an insult, since my nomination was for deletion, not for keeping. A fact of which you were well aware. Maybe you could be aware of this aspect of polite communications in the future. As for the article topic, I agree that it is verifiable but it does not meet any of the other core policies per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview_of_the_AFD_deletion_process, hence my nomination for deletion. I have edited the article and left everything that conforms with policy. The information in the article is nothing more than what Google Maps can offer. --Law Lord (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verified towns are inherently notable regardless of size. Not only is it verified [2], but there appears to be a notable church in the town. [3] A verified town like this would never get nominated for deletion if it was in the US or Britain and to delete a similar one simply because it's in another country would be systemic bias. Now that the article has been reduced to a stub that can grow to improved standards, I advise the nom to withdraw this nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice is unwanted and insincere. Rather, it would be well-received if you were to improve your tone as I have advised you to. My nomination has nothing to do with the country of the town, and I very much disagree with your assessment that the country has anything to do with the nomination. Since I am the nominator, I am the only one who knows what caused the nomination. The reasons are stated above, and they are all stated. --Law Lord (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all the stated reasons ("violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style" etc.) for the nomination have been corrected by the nom, those same stated reasons for a continued AfD are nonsensical. We're simply left with a stub about a verified town and based on that, this AfD will likely end in a unanimous "keep". That's why I'm advising to withdraw the nomination. That's sincere. --Oakshade (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I withdraw the nomination. --Law Lord (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - articles on towns, villages,etc need never be deleted; it is so easy to improve them. No specialist knowledge is required. Even if the article were simply to say "Vinica sucks" and nothing else it still should not be deleted, just rewritten to read "Vinica is a town in Bosnia-Herzegovina". Jameswilson (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All verifiable currently inhabited populated places are inherently notable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn – As I already posted on 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC). --Law Lord (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, sorry. I didn't spot that. For future reference, when withdrawing a nomination it's often a good idea to note this somewhere near the nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (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.