Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasek, Łuków County

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 redirect‎ to Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship. Sourcing is insufficient, but history remains should some eventuate for a merger or re-spin. Star Mississippi 18:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lasek, Łuków County[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Though this is described as a "forest hamlet", a more accurate translation of the term osada leśna would be "forest settlement" (A hamlet - przysiółek - in Polish law is reserved for a cluster of farms, not a single farm). A forest settlement in Polish law need not be inhabited, and can be part of a another settlement. From the satellite photos it can seen that this is just an individual farm, the address of which is in Klimki (the village in which this settlement is located) - there is no evidence of it having ever been anything else.

Three sources are provided in the article:

A link to the TERYT database that merely reports this as a "forest settlement", and provides no further data.
A link to the Polish regulation on place-names, which simply repeats that it is a forest settlement.
A Polish postal directory, which actually includes no entry for Lasek, Gmina Łuków.

Based on the location actually being a single farm, the status the place having not being one that requires the location to be populated, and the postal directory lacking an entry for this location, this fails WP:GEOLAND. Specifically, there is no clear evidence that this is a "legally-recognised populated place". Even if it were a GEOLAND pass, WP:NOPAGE means there would be no need for a page on this topic that cannot possibly ever be expanded into a full article due to lack of sourcing.

Notably, no population is reported for this location in any of the sources either on here or on PL Wiki.

In terms of ATDs, I'm OK with simply redirecting this to Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship, which it is part of and all of its details are identical to, but prefer deletion since we should not be redirecting the names of individual farms. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be a single farm. –dlthewave ☎ 00:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- More than one house or farm. There are numbers 34 and 34A, and I'm not sure if number 35 nearby is part of it or has its own place name. Peter James (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  But, for the avoidance of doubt, those addresses are all in Klimki, right? Having looked into this in detail, Poland used to maintain forestry offices in woodland areas, many of which were registered in TERYT and in the place-name regulation as “forest settlements”. Some were later sold off and became private houses/farms (see the PL wiki article on forester’s lodges). However, these remain on the register as “forest settlements”. Something similar happened to Polish state farms - some of our articles even have the initials “PGR” (I.e, “State Agrigultural Farm”).
  We’re looking at a status that individual buildings/farms could receive. FOARP (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Individual buildings (or areas occupied by a building, with or without additional land) could probably have the status of UK civil parish or US city (which have boundaries and could exclude a new house built next to that building). A list of populated places would not exclude places with official recognition just because they have only one or two inhabited buildings. A place and a building are not the same - if the building is demolished the place still exists, and if the building is moved to a new location it may cease to be part of the place. Peter James (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. TL;DR, I think hamlets are likely notable, unless we can prove beyond doubt this was a hut or such that nobody ever lived in. It has a unique name and is recorded in statistical Polish databases. I'd consider a merge target if it was a part of a larger village but I don't see this here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus - The WP:BURDEN is on the people making the claim that this place is a hamlet to show that it is a hamlet. None of the data in the article says this - it is listed as a "forest settlement". A hamlet would be a przysiółek, and would be a cluster of farms. According to the English-language definition of hamlet also, a hamlet is more than just a single farm. Many forestry offices were added to the register as osada and remained on there after being sold off, and this is likely just another example of this.

Particularly demanding that it be proved beyond doubt that a place isn't something that no source say it is is an inversion of WP:BURDEN - it is for people making the claim that this place is a hamlet to prove it, not the other way round. And even if it were a hamlet, then WP:NOPAGE is clear about what we do with topics for which no actual article can be developed. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the case of interwiki problems (or translation headache), but as I said, pl:osada has the interwiki to hamlet (location). pl:Przysiółek is something else and does not have English interwiki. Frankly, what we know is that this place is classified as an "osada", and trying to use English translations adds a layer of possible confusion on top of it. Maybe we should have a discussion at WT:POLAND on notability of such entities. As you have already seen, even on pl wiki there is no clear consensus (although usually inclusionists win). Although I don't consider myself an inclusionist these days, as I explained here and eleshwere recently, I think a minimum of redirect for such names (searchable terms) is required. I know WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument overall, but those are historical or present names someoen can search for and they should get some kind of result from the encyclopedia - not necessarily a stand-alone article, but something useful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Piotrus, you asked to be pinged where there was a viable redirect, here it would be Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship, which the site has an address within. FOARP (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP How sure are we that the address is in Klimki? @Stok, any thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus - At least Google Maps gives the addresses at the site in the article as being in Klimki (e.g., the houses at the location are listed as "Klimki 34A" and "Klimki 35"). FOARP (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Klimki, Lublin Voivodeship. I tend to prefer to keep minor places at least as redirects where they can be shown to actually exist. But in the absence of sources either in depth or with at least a full range of statistical data (i.e. a separate census listing), it doesn't make sense to maintain a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2023 (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.