Kiedrowice (hamlet): The location for this "hamlet" given in the article is the local forestry office for the village of Kiedrowice ( see here ), the centre of which is located a short distance away and for which we already have an article .  As such this article is self-evidently just a duplication.  Looking at the 2012 location-names law, this lists a "forest settlement" ( osada leśna ) called Kiedrowice in Lipnica as well as a "village" ( wieś ) with the same name also in Lipnica - there is no reason given here not to believe these are not exactly the same thing, included as a clerical artefact in this 1500+ page long document.  The relevant content of the 2015 law is identical.  The 1746-page-long postal directory lists two addresses called "Kiedrowice" - Kiedrowice and Kiedrowice (Karcz) (i.e., remnant, or "stub", though there does appear to be another hamlet called Karcz in the general area with a different PNA), evidently the same location as they have the same PNA.  None of these have any data giving the actual location of these places (which begs the question of where the location in the article comes from), nor their population.  A WP:BEFORE search is meaningless as results are found for the village.  The Polish article is identical except that it identifies it as a "forest settlement".  Normally it would be reasonable to propose merging, but there is nothing to merge here since the details are essentially the same (same post-code, some other details).  This is what happens when articles are generated at speed from sources that do no more than list names in a geographical hierarchy - the creator spent about 4 minutes on this article and I've now spent ~30 minutes doing this review.  FOARP ( talk ) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  FOARP ( talk ) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This same user has created many substubs on locations in Poland that follow this model, giving nothing more than a generic statement regarding the location, and then a bit of database information in the infobox, all based off one or two census sources.  FOARP , was there some kind of discussion at one point regarding banning GEOLAND articles (or doing something, at least) that are based solely on such sources?  I BLAR'd the ones a found at NPP, but Joe Roe reverted those edits, saying that my reasoning was subjective.  Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We've argued that one to death and I don't think we're going to see much movement for a while at least.  What I'd like to know is where the location data came from, as it's not in any of the sources in the article.  FOARP ( talk ) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Thanks for starting a deletion discussion and doing the research.  Could we just redirect Kiedrowice (hamlet) to Kiedrowice ?  Or if you are certain the sources for the hamlet are actually talking about the same place, they could be added to the village, ie merging.  Then if someone does come up with a source that shows the forest settlement is distinct and tells us something meaningful about it, it can easily be resurrected.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There’s nothing to merge here as the content is the same, nor is there any point in a redirect for something nobody is going to search (EDIT: particularly because Kiedrowice is not defined as a hamlet, which in Polish is a przysiółek , but as a forest settlement or osada leśna , so the title is incorrect).  The article-content in its entirety is "Kiedrowice is a hamlet in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland, within the Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County." , which is identical to content already in the "village" article except that it says "Kiedrowice [kʲɛdrɔˈvit͡sɛ] is a village in Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County, Pomeranian Voivodeship, in northern Poland."  There's a post-code in the info-box that I've added to the "village" article, the references are repetitious but appear to say the same thing as the "village" article, but I've added them all the same, so what's left to merge?  FOARP ( talk ) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess we could get into attribution issues if you've taken content from Kiedrowice (hamlet) and used it in another article??  Not an area I have any expertise in.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no attribution issue with taking content from one page and adding it to another, that already recited essentially the same information (i.e., that Kiedrowice is a village in Gmina Lipnica).  FOARP ( talk ) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  I'll probably start an AfD on pl wiki (if I do so I'll link it here if this is still open) but I don't see how this meets GNG.  Per [2] it is not a hoax (it exists, classified as osada leśna, separate from the village) but what can be said about it?  I fear, nothing.  WP:NOPAGE seems to be strong here.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Piotrus . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:10, 23 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