Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Litva, Kursk Oblast


 * 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 no consensus. While this article hasn't been deleted, dlthwave's comments about mass-creation of poor quality stubs is absolutely correct and a reflection of current sentiment (as previously demonstrated at ANI quite recently). The proposal to stop the automated mass creation of stubs that will be put forward in the new year for consideration as potential policy will hopefully address this in a formulated way. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Litva, Kursk Oblast

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A user has created over 400 geo articles with the same set of sources, using the same template with only slight variations. Sources such as census tables and the distance to the nearest railroad bot are insufficient to establish GNG, so we're left with the question of whether a rural locality counts as a legally recognized populated place. I'm nominating this one partly as a test to see whether a mass TNT deletion is in order. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does this hostility come from? Here I explained that I am not a bot – now you're going to suggest deleting the rest of a few hundred of my articles? Autopatrolled ThWiki1910 16:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This user must stop creating low-quality stubs immediately. Per Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_66, this "large-scale semi-/automated article creation task" requires a BRFA. I do not believe that there is a consensus that we want mass-creation of pages for places with 1 person. It is highly unusal to list distances to the border or a Transport section with distances to highways and airports. Reywas92Talk 20:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not have elementary respect for the work of other people in Wikipedia. You see a similar page without seeing working hours that have been devoted to their creation. Try some of these articles to read, check sources, then you will see differences and you may understand why it could not create a bot. Creating a few pages a day you call mass? A bot would do it in a few minutes, not in a few months. If my logical arguments do not impress you, then do not limit yourself and apply to pick up my autopatrolled or immediately to block my account. Paranoic deleting action for over 420 articles? If English GNG allows the existence of small villages, in which there are often more houses than residents, I do not understand your campaign. Instead of geographical data, you expect historical essays with Napoleon in the background, letters of famous people who were born there or maybe curiosities like finding mammoth bone? With these places there are no sources on such topics, and this is the most important in every encyclopedia. ThWiki1910 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you familiar with our guideline on villages WP:GEOLAND? We do allow articles on small villages, but only if they A) are "legally recognized" (i.e. incorporated/part of the area's administrative structure) or B) have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. So yes, we do require more than just geographic data to meet these requirements. If sufficient sourcing does not exist, then we do not create an article on the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places... – all localities whose my articles concerned meet this most important condition. They are listed in the records of administrative units (they have an OKATO ID given). This is obvious. ThWiki1910 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, Litva is not its own administrative unit but rather is a rural locality governed by the Bolshezhirovsky selsoviet. Most national geographic databases such as OKATO will assign identification numbers to all sorts of villages, localities, etc. regardless of administrative status, but we typically do not accept this alone as legal recognition. I'm having difficulty accessing OKATO so would you be willing to clarify how the database describes Litva? –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An older identifier is OKTMO. OKATO is a newer, but both identifiers are interrelated (a bit like Celsius and Fahrenheit degrees). I have a difficulty to put a link to OKATO in infobox, because it is converted (in a "magical" way) on OKTMO. If Infobox showed OKATO, the link to the database would be: OKATO 38244831015. For OKTMO is: OKTMO 38644412316. Exchange OKATO to OKTMO. My all articles have sources (links): to selsovjet (the unit where the rural locality is situated), to real estate report, to postcode... What do you want more? After your correction, Litva, Kursk Oblast is only suitable for deleting – one line. Why? Because you can not admit your mistake? Be serious. I am. ThWiki1910 1:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying OKATO/OKTMO. I'm not seeing anything in the database entry that establishes this as a legally recognized settlement. The problem with the other information you added is that it is not specific to Litva. Yes, the selsoviet has a website with a subpage for Bolshezhirovsky village council, but nothing about Litva. Postcode 307114 encompasses several selo, and the webpage does not mention Litva. Likewise, the railway page lists a station that is quite a distance away and again makes no mention of Litva. This brings us to the real estate report. This is just an a cadastral property ownership map which does nothing to establish notability. You're right: After we strip away the superfluous "cruft", there's not really anything left that could justify having an article.
 * What we need is significant coverage, or actual in-depth prose that somebody wrote about Litva, from multiple sources. Something that we could use to write an article that covers more than just calculated statistics. Without that, we simply can't have an article, no matter how much work you put into it. –dlthewave ☎ 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Who "we"? More like you yourself, unable to admit to being wrong. And did you understand this much? Are you suggesting that this locality (khutor) does not exist just because you cannot deal with sources in Russian? Was it really so difficult for you to find, for example, this document (pdf) on the website of selsoviet? You deleted almost the entire article without checking the link "Real estate report: Litva" because what? Don't you know that a postcode usually covers several localities? The fact that an idiot, using the GNIS database, treated the many mills as settlements, should affect the deletion of one in the series of full-fledged articles on real localities in Russia? So many explanations and still the same? Having fun? You are not really waiting for what I will write, so I inform you that all my articles I create, like "Litva, Kursk Oblast" (after your "corrections", it's simply trash), have reliable sources. If you do not agree with this, I only wish you (and your two loyal friends) a pleasant deletion of over 400 articles. ThWiki1910 0:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with DLthewave, a cadastral survey merely documents land ownership, it says nothing really about the settlement itself. These do not appear to be “fully fledged articles”, instead they appear to be bare listings padded out with information that is not actually about the settlement. Advise the creator to look more at news media coverage, book coverage (particularly histories), academic coverage and so-forth. The temptation to go through a database and create hundreds of basically-identical articles that say nothing really about the subject should be avoided. FOARP (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - These Selo are manifestly not self-administrating (i.e., they are not a level of governance/administration). Simply giving them a feature/census-taking number does not actually confer legal recognition on the locality, any more than the US's GNIS feature numbers, or census-tracts, confer legal recognition on a populated place. What you're left with when you take out the automatically-generated cruft is a bare gazetteer listing, but Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. The problem of giving autopatrolled to people who create large numbers of low-quality articles is demonstrated above: it is taken as an endorsement of the creation of those articles. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep actual Russian place with registered population in the census, passes GEOLAND. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The page was blanked after the nomination and before reaching consensus. This is against the AfD policy. I'm reverting that edit. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - unusually well-referenced, in fact, and more than enough to meet WP:GEOLAND as generally interpreted. Ingratis (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on the quality of the references, though? Some of them don't seem to actually mention Litva. –dlthewave ☎ 05:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling a bit, I must admit, as I'm not able to open some of them, and I'm v poor at anything in Cyrillic. However, this (pointed at above by User:ThWiki1910) is an official document of the relevant selsoviet and confirms that the settlement of Litva is part of it. I can't access the census report but am more than happy to trust SportingFlyer's statement above that it includes Litva. That's enough for a Keep on the present footing. (There's a fundamental problem with the term "legally-recognised", which is far too vague to be of any use outside the US - in any other context it just doesn't equate to "self-governing administrative unit", although it seems that many editors (as above) want it to mean that: it doesn't, without a very full discussion which has not taken place). The alternative solution here would surely be an article on the Bolshezhirovsky Selsoviet listing the component khutors to which this and the other articles cd redirect. As always, WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with FOARP. Also, sourcing is very unconventional, some are deprecated. Tame (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Which are the sources you think are deprecated? Ingratis (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)n
 * While waiting for a reply from Tamingimpala, which it seems may be a long time coming, I'll add that the sources include hardcopy ones, which I see no reason to doubt are bona fide official sources. As above, the article contains what is required by WP:GEOLAND, which is to say, confirmation of legal recognition and verification that it's a populated settlement. WP:ATD is always to be borne in mind, of course, but it's not necessary here, and for that reason I've withdrawn my comment above about redirecting.Ingratis (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.