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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bancal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to clearly pass both WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. SportingFlyer talk 12:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Obviously passes WP:NGEO. What is nom thinking? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Taking up the challenge issued by Sandstein I will quote WP:GEOLAND, which is a subcriterion of WP:NGEO and which states that Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. This is a populated legally recognized place and therefore it is notable. Hth. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - clearly "legally recognised." SportingFlyer talk 23:27, 12 November 2018 (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.