Završje, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County: I fail to see how this could be considered notable.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We have many articles about formerly inhabited places, sometimes known as ghost towns.  Once notable, always notable.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a documented history of human habitation there, so this qualifies as a gazetteer entry under WP:5P1 .  If you click around the other language links, they have more information and graphs showing when the village was inhabited, so there's WP:POTENTIAL to expand this.  It's not a lot, but it is conceivable that this would be of use to an average English reader who might stumble upon the location, like any other empty village.  ( Keep ) -- Joy ( talk ) 06:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete In spite of what people are saying, there's not enough reliable information here.  A single census entry fails both ways: if it says it isn't populated, it doesn't say that it was, and if it says that it was populated, that's not a source for a lack of population now.  Furthermore, the location given in the article (uncited and imprecise) does seem to go to a place that could be a tiny village, only GMaps assigns it a different name.  Our experience sourcing articles entirely from census results has been poor, with a lot of misinterpretation.  We do not need to be so desperate to keep every supposed dot on a map (which we do not have, I note) to keep this quite doubtful article.  If someone comes up with better data it could be recreated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe ( talk • contribs ) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think this argument about verifiability is useful because this is in fact easily verifiable if you know where to look.  The Croatian Bureau of Statistics has on their website the "PC Axis" database for their dataset called Naselja i stanovništvo Republike Hrvatske 1857.-2001.  ( lit. ' Settlements and population of the Republic of Croatia 1857-2001. ' ) which lists this Završje under Brod Moravice in the somewhat complex forms at [22] and we can easily verify the table at the other language Wikipedia, confirming continuous habitation between the first census of 1857 and 1981.  Likewise an even more trivial Završje search at the Croatian State Geodetic Administration Geoportal website https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ produces it at the top, and that website also has an option to generate a deep link like this .  -- Joy ( talk ) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One thing I notice in the Geoportal map is that the former village itself is named "Završje", but so is a yellow outline of a number of surrounding villages with an uppercase form "ZAVRŠJE". I'm not sure what this layer with yellow outlines means, possibly a cadastral municipality or something? This probably adds some more value to continuing to document this toponym. -- Joy ( talk ) 09:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You just have to look at the Croatian article to see that its population has been tracked through time and has only been uninhabited for the past 30 years or so, peaking at 83 people, making it eligible for an article.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw - Clearly a keep.  My bad.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SportingFlyer.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:32, 22 February 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