Luboń (hamlet), Pomeranian Voivodeship: The place-name law sources all describe this as a  "forest settlement" ( osada leśna ), not a hamlet ( przysiółek ).  There is no evidence of the place being populated in any of these sources.  The postal-directory source mentions only one place with this name, manifestly the village.  No point merging as asides from describing this as a "hamlet" the article content does not differ to that of the "village" - the only difference is the infobox content about post-codes and repetitive sources, which simply for the sake of completeness I have already added.  Similarly, no-one is going to be searching this term (especially as this place is not a hamlet) so no need for a redirect.  WP:BEFORE does not show up any sources except for the village.  FOARP ( talk ) 07:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  FOARP ( talk ) 07:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They have different SIMC IDs; both are named as Luboń.  The coordinates here are different, and point to a place with the name Luboń Leśniczówka on some maps.  There is another name Luboń-Wybudowania nearby.  Peter James ( talk ) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SIMC IDs are place-attributes , not a form of legal recognition reserved only for inhabited populated places.  My Polish is not particularly great, but AFAIK "Luboń Leśniczówka" is just "Luboń forestry", and "Luboń-Wybudowania" just means "Luboń-construction" - these are just buildings within the village of Luboń.  The title is incorrect as this is not a hamlet ( przysiółek ) but a "forest settlement" ( osada leśna ).  Polish law defines a settlement ( osada ) as follows: "osada - niewielką jednostkę osadniczą na terenie wiejskim o odmiennym (wyróżniającym się) charakterze zabudowy albo zamieszkaną przez ludność związaną z określonym miejscem lub rodzajem pracy, w szczególności: osadę młyńską, osadę leśną, osadę rybacką, osadę kolejową, osadę po byłym państwowym gospodarstwie rolnym; osada może być samodzielna lub może stanowić część innej jednostki osadniczej;" Or in machine translation: "settlement - a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development or inhabited by people associated with a specific place or type of work, in particular: a mill settlement, a forest settlement, a fishing settlement, a railway settlement, a settlement of a former state farm; the settlement may be independent or may constitute part of another settlement unit ;" (emphasis added) From this you can see that the location need not actually be populated (emphasis on the " or inhabited" part of this) or independent.  In this case, it's clear that it is not independent.  WP:GEOLAND confers recognition on legally-recognised populated places, not mere parts of them that are not necessarily populated.  It should also be noted that the locations are unsourced, but anyway in the same area.  FOARP ( talk ) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Settlement means that it is (or was) populated; the alternative to "inhabited by people associated with a specific place or type of work" is not "uninhabited".  Peter James ( talk ) 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But in the Polish law it also includes locations just "with a different (distinct) character of development" that aren't necessarily inhabited.  This is not a hamlet, let alone a village - the term for that in Polish is different.  It also isn't separate to the village of Luboń, so WP:NOPAGE would apply in any case.  FOARP ( talk ) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Settlements, not locations.  WP:NOPAGE probably applies, but it would be more useful to make these into lists.  Peter James ( talk ) 13:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But to be a “settlement” in Polish law does not require that the location was necessarily ever populated, and in this case the thing referred to is clearly the same as that in another article (a “settlement” inside a “village” with exactly the same name).  FOARP ( talk ) 13:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the definition of "jednostka osadnicza" means it was populated.  It's possible that it would include somewhere that was built and then abandoned before people moved in, but without examples we don't know that is the case, and even if it is we shouldn't make guidelines based on it.  There's also no source to say it's in the village with the same name, only that it's in Gmina Lipnica.  Peter James ( talk ) 14:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "There's also no source to say it's in the village with the same name, only that it's in Gmina Lipnica" - It is, I think you have to acknowledge, unlikely that two locations with the same name located in essentially the same place aren't going to be essentially the same thing.  The legal definition of osada explicitly allows that it can be part of another settlement.  Other factors that indicate that they are the same thing include the postal register including only a single listing for Luboń in Lipnica, and the Polish GUS/BDL database including data only for a single Luboń in Lipnica (search here ), so from the point of view of both the Polish statistical bureau and the Polish postal service, there is only one Luboń in Lipnica.  What kind of list are you proposing?  A list of units in Lipnica might make sense, a list of the one osada in Luboń less so.  FOARP ( talk ) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge .  It has some administrative separate existence, but I cannot imagine this passes GNG otherwise.  It has no unique history, nothing is known about it.  Redirect to the main village, where we can mention the administrative split.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:57, 17 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect