Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brzęczek


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This No consensus closure doesn't mean that this article can't be turned into a Redirect, it just won't be as a result of this AFD. Please discuss this possibility on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Brzęczek

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Bot-created article by bot Kotbot, operated by retired user Kotniski.

There is nothing visible at the location in the article. Lake Brzęczek does not appear to have anything built on its shores other than a few fishing jetties.

The article states that Brzęczek has a population of 5 people, however no source is given for this, either here or on the PL wiki article. I cannot find a listing for Brzęczek on the Polish statistical database where census data should be available (it collects data back to 1998 and the date given for this population in the PL wiki article is 2006).

The TERYT database, and the Polish regulation on place-names, both describe this as an osada (settlement) which are typically single buildings, and for which population statistics may not be collected. The nearest building I can find to the location given in the article is a forestry office for the forest of Jastrzębce, the address of which is given as being in "Jastrzębce" so I don't think this is the building referred to.

TL;DR - this place has no demonstrated population. Fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE. No reasonable redirect - the name is simply the Polish word for "buzzer", which no-one would reasonably search looking for a random place in Poland. No accurate content to merge. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Pl wiki gives population as 5, which is hardly impressive, but nonetheless I think hamlet, legally defined, passes GEOLAND. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus - As discussed in the nom, PL wiki does not have a source for this, and checks on the GUS statistical database do not show any data being held there for this location. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FOARP TERYT lists it as pl:osada. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus - Right, and what is an osada for the purpose of the registry? In many cases, just the former forestry office, or local state farm, or railway station, or fisherman's hut, or mill - not a village or even a hamlet. If it was a village, hamlet, colony, or similar establishment, then it would be listed as such. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FOARP I agree. The thing is, it meets GEOLAND 'legally recognized place' criteria. Further, I feel that at minimum such names such be redirects in wiki, as there are searchable terms. But if we have no good redirect target, keeping this until we do seems more helpful to the readers than having a red link. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus -WP:GEOLAND requires a legally-recognised populated place, and this has failed verification as to whether anyone has ever lived here. If a redirect target is needed, it could be redirected to the Gmina it is in (Gmina Liniewo). My guess is this was probably a fishing hut or forestry office at some point, which is how it made it on to the register.
 * The alternative is keeping an article that we can't ever improve because there won't ever be any information about such a place, but also can never delete because it is impossible to prove an negative (i.e., that this place never existed or at least was never a real populated settlement). FOARP (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't know if anyone has ever lived here, yes, but we also have no proof nobody did. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, WP:BURDEN is clear that the people making the claim that is was inhabited are the ones who need to prove it was. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Piotrus, you asked to pinged for articles where there was a viable redirect. Here it would likely be Jastrzębce, Pomeranian Voivodeship. FOARP (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FOARP Hmmm. The Google map doesn't even show Jastrzębce, just the forestry office? @Stok. Frankly, if we have a RS that this entity is in another entity, I am not very opposed to redirecting since stand-alone articles should prove someting beyong "existence". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus - This source says that Brzęczek is in the Jastrzębce forest: https://starogard.gdansk.lasy.gov.pl/en/rezerwaty-przyrody FOARP (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Stok hasn't edited for several weeks and only has 53 edits on the English Wikipedia. I wouldn't wait for them to make your opinion final. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * - The above source says Brzęczek is part of Jastrzębce forest, redirecting to there seems viable. FOARP (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to revisit this when I have time and will. Nobody else commented here? @Stok... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.