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.
Flunks WP:GEOLAND - German article refers to it as a "de:Einzelsiedlung" or "single settlement" - a single house on farmland. Not a village, not even an unrecognized settlement, just a house. PROD contested because it was recreated after being PROD'd in 2008. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Altomünster - Xyger is considered a village within the municipality of Altomunster, and it is already mentioned there. I was going to redirect the title there myself after reverting the inapplicable PROD but PmC was faster than me and started the AfD. I think it would be fine to withdraw the AfD and redirect the title, unless PmC you oppose redirection? Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of do. GNIS has it as a populated place, which is beneath a village, and per the nomination, the German article backs that up by referring to it as a "single settlement". The Altomünster article doesn't have a source for the claim that it's a village. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really should expand Geographic Names Information System. I actually have sources for at least some of the problems with "populated place". See User talk:Hog Farm#GNIS locations. It really is very much not something that has any bearing on whether an encyclopaedia article should exist, because it simply doesn't carry the information needed to make such a determination.
If we've learned anything from the GNIS mess, it should be that where the GNIS says "populated place", and where Wikipedia editors have translated that into the information-free cop-out "unincorporated community", we need to find out what the thing is. My general approach for U.S. articles is to find an actual decent gazetteer that says what the thing is. For the mainly 19th century names on maps that come up, Lippincott's or Polk's gazetteers are useful, because they actually have consistent terminology such as "post-village" or "post-town", or "township", or "post-office".
So for this the best bet is to try to find out what the thing is from something better than the GNIS. A decent German gazetteer, for example.
Well, this source from the German article gives its type as Einöde, which is the "single settlement" thing I was referring to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a gazetteer from 1868 with the nice short title Bavaria: Landes- und Volkskunde des Königreichs Bayern : mit einer Uebersichtskarte des diesseitigen Bayerns in 15 Blättern. Topographisch-statistisches Handbuch des Königreichs Bayern nebst alphabetischem Orts-Lexikon. that says
Xyger ( Gsieger ) , E. , t . Pf . Wollomoos , 10 Einw . , 6 Geb.
So it had a population of 10 in 1868 and was near Wollomoos [de]. A quick skim didn't reveal a glossary of terms for "E." or "t.". "E." is likely the same as yours. "Pf." is "Pfarrdorf"/Pfarrdorf, but that's Wollomoos. So now we know what it even is, contrary to the information-free description in the article, the next step is whether it's documented in depth for any reason. Uncle G (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far, none of this is contradicting my point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But without it, you wouldn't have had your ducks in a row to counter the inevitable arguments to keep because it's a "community". Because now you can say that per sources it's a populated "Weiler" of roughly 10 people, 6 farm buildings, 5 horses, and 22 cattle; with no school, no (Catholic) priest, and no post office; and has been just that for over two centuries. And then you can point to the Wikipedia is not a Verzeichniß policy. ☺
Gsieger . Einöd · Höfe , Wollomoos
— Alphabetisches Verzeichniß aller zum Ober-Donau-Kreis gehörigen Städte, Märkte, Dörfer, Weiler und Einöden ... zu Ende des Jahres 1818, p. 65
Xyger, W. , 2. k. Pf. u. Schule Wollomoos 2,5 Kil. z. Post Altomünster 8,5 Kil., 10 Einw., 6 Geb., 5 P., 22 Rv.
— Vollständiges Ortschaften-Verzeichniss des Königreichs Bayern 1877, p. 13
Actually, it isn't a re-creation at all. The previous article was about a purported city in a wholly different part of Germany with a population of roughly 37,000; challenged for being a hoax. Creating something else entirely isn't really challenging the deletion of that. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although it doesn't seem to be a settlement or administrative unit it does appear to have some coverage and a stated population. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crouch, Swale, "stated population" is not a notability criteria under WP:GEOLAND. Listing in gazetteers & similar is explicitly not considered coverage under GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may qualify as being "legally recognized" if the stated population comes from a census as opposed to another website that states it has around a population of X. The exception GEOLAND gives is census tracts which are simply random areas which this does not appear to be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to municipality, the base level of government. Dewiki says "The place with two farms had nine residents in 2016, all of whom are related" and it should be obvious that this is not notable. Reywas92Talk 14:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Altomünster as a small village in a larger municipality. Sometimes these villages can be notable, but I'd need more sources. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 20:23, 4 March 2022 (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.