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 delete. The consensus is that this subject fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 17:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete As it stands, this fails verification. The supposed source does not in fact appear to have been used, as all the information except maybe the coords was copied from the unsourced article on the Polish WP by Kotbot; my guess is that the coordinates came over from Polish WP later in the same way. Those coordinates are for an isolated house a short ways outside another town. Following the supposed reference link leads to a fairly generic page which does not contain information about this supposed place. I do not speak Polish, nor anything even roughly cognate, so I was unable to go further than this, but at the moment the only information is that either this is not a settlement at all, or that the information in the article is essentially wrong. If someone who does have Polish could check this out and update the article, that would be a huge help, but I'm not going to give a geostub a pass on procedural grounds when the most basic verification— is there anything there?— can be done in under 30 seconds with a decent internet connection. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
coordinates are for an isolated house - no. it is a group of buildings. In plwiki Nawojczyn is described as osada, which is a minor settlement. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NGEO no verifiable information whatsoever beyond maps and postal code (and weather today :-). Lembit Staan (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
from WP:NGEO: This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. plwiki has different rules (which is OK). On the other hand, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable - here we have a problem. How do we know if it is populated and legally recognized? It was already discussed that postal index is not an evidence neither of being populated not officially recognized, just the same as children of illegal immigrants can go to school her in California, but merely having student's card does not make them legal. Finally the wording "typically presumed to be" which is not the same as "are notable". "Presumed" means "if wikipedians were not so lazy, they would have found WP:GNG sources to establish notability". I say, not in his case. IMO the only one thing notable about it is its name :-) (and I expanded the article accordingly) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd normally say that this passes WP:GEOLAND. However, looking at Google Maps and Streetview, it does not appear to consist of more than a couple of houses and is not signposted or streetnamed in any way. I know that in Britain we do not usually accept articles on hamlets unless they have signposts and/or nameboards, so I don't think Poland should be any different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NGEO - no verifiable information, only maps + postal code CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2021 (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.