Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makeyevka, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗ plicit  12:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Makeyevka, Kursk Oblast

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

Also nominating:

Mass-created cookie-cutter articles on Russian villages with population <10. These fail WP:GEOLAND due to A) lack of legal recognition and B) no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The sources provided appear to be either government documents (census tables etc) or autogenerated sites that scrape databases to calculate weather, post office locations, distance to nearest railroad, etc with no fact checking. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete All - The subject of these articles are Russian Selos. Similar to the previous Turkish Mahalle and Iranian ābādī cases this appears to be a term that can be translated both as a "village" and as a "rural locality". The census data therefore should not be taken automatically as indicating that there is a legally-recognised populated place at the location, instead this may simply be a census-taking unit covering a basically homogenous area of land, perhaps even a single farm. Importantly, these Selos are not described as having any form of actual self-governance, not even a head-man or similar figure, but appear to be governed at district level. Evidence of legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND#1 is therefore missing.
 * Turning to whether a GNG pass can be shown, there is no evidence whatsoever that any reliable, independent source has ever written anything in terms of significant coverage about these locations, much less the multiple instances of significant coverage required under GNG. Instead what we have here are articles stitched together using bare mentions in sources of varying reliability.
 * There is a clear BOTPOL issue raised here as these articles show every sign of at least WP:MEATBOT-style editing, including the propagating of basic, unfixed errors from one article into another through cutting and pasting. The transport links sections especially smell of automatically-generated content, describing as they do links to roads many miles from the actual location simply to pad out the content of each article. The creator at the very least should lose the autopatrolled bit until they can show that they know how to create clearly notable, well-referenced articles, and if this AFD ends with deletion I intend to raise this on the Autopatrolled talk page. FOARP (talk) 11:31, 9 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.