Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 km, Sakhalin Oblast

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge‎ to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status is the compromise that emerged over the past week. RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17 km, Sakhalin Oblast

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

17 km, Sakhalin Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the peculiar name suggests, what evidence there is indicates this is/was a rail stop and not a settlement. Looking at the Russian version, I see that it was designated a село, but even given the vague nature of the term, there's no evidence that there was or is a village/whatever there; indeed, I cannot find a feature on GMaps or anything similar which I can identify as this place. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm functionally illiterate in Russian, so I can't read the sources for myself, but all the article says is "This is a place in the middle of nowhere" and basically nothing else. If something important goes on there or we get more information, we can resurrect it. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Population of 2, which is non-zero, according to Results of the 2020 All-Russian Population Census for the Sakhalin Region, and which was probably rather more at the time the settlement was founded. Did nobody bother to look at the corresponding article in Russian (with 9 references) at ru:17-й км (Сахалинская область)? Being named after a railway kilometre-post is not a reason for deletion. Consider 100 Mile House in British Columbia, several place names at Mile End (disambiguation) and Two Mile. We have enough evidence to keep the article. Dismissing it as only a railway point is unjustified and the dreaded "original research". Google Translate's version of the Russian article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a brutal cleanup, a copyedit, and a couple factual corrections, but I can confirm this is a place that's categorized as an inhabited locality and previously had people living there, which is all that's needed to keep a geostub according to our geonotability criteria. Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2023; 21:42 (UTC) 21:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The “population” of 2 people are discussing above is entirely consistent with the staff of the railway station! If the GEOLAND standard (a guideline) is literally leading us to keep articles about non-notable railway stations in the middle of nowhere that nothing notable can be written about against
    WP:IINFO
    (a policy) then that’s a reason to doubt that GEOLAND is guiding us correctly. GEOLAND anyway only creates a presumption of notability, a presumption that is decisively rebutted by a simple reference to common sense: this is a railway station with a staff of two people. No evidence at all is presented above of it having ever been anything but this.
None of the references in the Russian language article help with this - indeed they highlight the true nature of what is being discussed: the locality had no population when it was designated a “village” in 2004, it had no population at the next census either. In 2021 the locality was recorded with a population of 2 people. “Village” status in Russia can therefore be given to locations with an official population of zero. This is therefore not a “legally recognised populated place” since it does not need to have a population to receive or keep the status. FOARP (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very much a "legally recognized populated place" because a) it is listed as such in all official lists of populated places (whereas generic railway stations are not); and b) the staff of railway stations is counted at the official place of residence of the said staff (which must be at an officially recognized inhabited locality, not at a place of work like a railway station). Inhabited locality status is also never given to (yet or already) unpopulated areas (although a previously populated place with an inhabited locality status may still retain said status despite later becoming depopulated); but even then (and even after officially having been removed from record) such places would continue to meet our criteria for keeping. The 2004 law which granted this place the status of a selo was simply one that unified the types of smaller inhabited localities across the whole of Sakhalin Oblast; it was not one transforming a random railway station into a brand new populated place; "17 km" already had populated place status before that (since at least 1948, as a matter of fact). It was one of seven rural localities (5 "settlements" and 2 "stations") under jurisdiction of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk which got reclassified as selos (both "settlement" and "station" had already been legally recognized types of rural localities before; along with "village" and "selo"). Furthermore, the Law on the Administrative-Territorial division of 2011 (and the Law this one replaced) specifically clarified that supporting structures are not on their own considered to be proper inhabited localities; inhabited locality status would specifically have to be granted for that to stop being the case:
    Населённые местности, имеющие временное значение и непостоянный состав населения и (или) являющиеся объектами служебного назначения (вахтовые и дачные посёлки, железнодорожные будки, дома лесников, заимки, полевые станы, метеостанции, животноводческие стоянки, прииски, лесоучастки и другие объекты), а также одиночные дома не являются самостоятельными населёнными пунктами и числятся за теми населёнными пунктами, с которыми находятся в административных, производственно-коммерческих и социально-бытовых отношениях. (Populated territories with temporary significance and non-permanent population and (or) service objects (shift and dacha settlements, railroad cabins, foresters' houses, camps, field camps, meteorological stations, livestock camps, mines, timber plots, and other objects), as well as stand-alone houses are not considered to be inhabited localities and are registered with those inhabited localities with which they are in administrative, industrial-commercial, and social-residential relations--Article 8.4).
    Сельские населённые пункты делятся на следующие виды: 1) село; 2) посёлок; 3) станция; 4) разъезд; 5) хутор; 6) иные населённые пункты, не отнесенные к городским населённым пунктам. (Rural locality types include: 1) selo; 2) settlement; 3) station; 4) junction; 5) khutor; 6) other inhabited localities not classified as urban--Article 8.3).
    I also would like to note that assuming that just the population is 2 it means it must be "staff" is pure original research and a conjecture. The very
    WP:NGEO
    you're quoting states that [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history, and there is plenty of evidence that 17 km is indeed a legally recognized place, which was populated in the past, even if it not now.
    Note also that 10 km, 14 km, 16 km, and 19 km are all bona fide "railway stations" in the immediate vicinity. None of them have or, to the best of my knowledge, ever had an official inhabited locality status or had their population recorded separately. If any of those were to be created based on the NGEO guideline alone, they would have to be immediately deleted. But 17 km is not the same at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2023; 04:39 (UTC) 04:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Inhabited locality status is also never given to (yet or already) unpopulated areas" - sorry, but here we have an example of exactly that occurring. The population was recorded as zero in 2002 and zero in 2010 according to RU Wiki, yet it became a selo in 2004?Saying it previously had another status at another time is neither here nor there unless it is demonstrated that there was ever a real settlement at this location - 2004 is when it became a selo, which is the status you're arguing gives it legal recognition.
    If you're going to claim the place was a legally-recognised populated place in 1948, this requires evidence that you aren't producing. Instead we can see from the RU Wiki article that it was given a station-name according to a local declaration in 1947 on railway station names in the area, that it was made a "territorial unit", and then designated a crossing - none of these shows it to be populated.
    That the people who live there are railway staff is a simple logical conclusion drawn from the fact that the only buildings in the tiny area specified in the RU wiki article (0.028 km²) are railway buildings.
    Citing example of places that don't have articles is pure
    WP:WAX
    , particularly when you are arguing on the keep side - I could just as easily state that this place has no real difference to those other places other than being a zero-population line-item on the Russian census and so equally does not warrant an article.
    Finally, is anyone really surprised if Russia does not always follow its own laws? Particularly in a state where there is every benefit in exaggerating population? FOARP (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't "become" a selo in 2004, at least not in the sense you're implying. It was simply a change of terminology. Sakhalin Oblast recognizes a variety of terms used to refer to rural localities, but there is no difference in status between them; the terms are mostly customary or historical, and pretty much interchangeable. From NGEO's point of view, whether a place is Sakhalin Oblast is a village, a selo, a station, a junction, or a settlement does not matter; what matters that they are all officially recognized rural localities of identical status, are listed as such, and track their own population (something that's not done for, say, a railway station which does not have a rural locality status—and there are dozens of those in Sakhalin Oblast, none of which would survive an AfD based on NGEO alone).
    Whether such places currently have a population or not does not matter either; nor does their size. Per NGEO, even abandoned inhabited localities which had at some point been officially recognized warrant an article. 17 km meets every requirement for inclusion and will continue to do so forever, until the community agrees to change the NGEO guideline in a way that it no longer does. You of course already know that, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing the lack of population up.
    The 1948 establishment claim I got from the Russian Wikipedia article, yes. It lists this document as a source (which I looked at and can confirm that it says exactly that). The "territorial unit" in the 1948 context means the same as the "inhabited locality" classification in modern context; "inhabited localities" are, and always have been, a subclass of "administrative-territorial divisions" (all of which automatically meet NGEO). The "crossing"/"junction" is another term that's been historically used (and is still used) in Sakhalin Oblast to refer to one of the types of rural localities (a subclass of "inhabited localities", a subclass of "territorial units", a subclass of "administrative-territorial divisions"--it's all in the same 2011 Law I cited above). Just like with the "stations", it does not mean that every single station/junction is automatically classified as an inhabited locality; only those specifically and explicitly conferred this status are (and in reality, it's not the station building where people work that gets this status, but the delineated territory on which that building and people's actual places of residence are located; one their own, station and service buildings would not even qualify, as the law citation I provided above would confirm).
    And also, I'm sorry, but your last sentence makes it really difficult to take any of your arguments seriously and strongly suggests a bias. It also makes no sense in this context (how does one "exaggerate population" by reporting population of zero year after year?).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2023; 18:00 (UTC) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "From NGEO's point of view, whether a place is Sakhalin Oblast is a village, a selo, a station, a junction, or a settlement does not matter; what matters that they are all officially recognized rural localities of identical status" - yet this list includes things that are palpably not villages? And at least 20,000 of Russia's 150,000 rural settlements are unpopulated? So what we're talking about aren't actually places that are required at any level to be populated in order to keep their status under Russian law, and can receive that status when not populated? FOARP (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leaving aside the fact GEOLAND is a guideline, not something ironclad we must follow, there's no evidence it actually meets the criteria. Two people living somewhere is a house, not a continuously-inhabited place, historic or otherwise, e that is meant by GEOLAND. If it's notable or was previously much more populous, it has to actually demonstrate that via sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant Kijé would like to comment First, let it be pointed out that the language of the guideline says that legally-recognized places are "typically" included. It is entirely reasonable to take some class of whatever some people regard as such recognition and exclude it. We've already done so with GNIS's "populated places" (which seem to be from a gazetteer standpoint to be essentially the same as Russian selos) and this seems to be the first time we've really confronted the issue of Russian place classifications, so it's entirely reasonable not to take this as a done deal.
Second, it is entirely reasonable to expect these sources to be consistent with more primary reports. The problems with GNIS became apparent when they were checked against their source topo maps and against aerial photography. In this wise the various suppositions above concerning the increase or decrease of population stand out, for surely primary sources must be preferred against mere speculation.
Third, as alluded to above, it is apparent that, whatever seems to be said about it historically, in the current tabulations "selo" appears to encompass many places that aren't villages and were not so historically. The current case is just one of many that appear to be nothing more than train stations and appear to have always been so. It is curious that, although frequently "selo" is translated mechanically as "village", in other cases it appears in English as "rural locality", though the two are hardly synonyms.
Finally, as far as bias is concerned, at least in the US these places haven't been considered notable in their own right, nor have 4th class post offices, another common case of supposed legal recognition; one might question whether Russian officialdom should somehow make them more so there. And yes, of old Russian governments have gotten a reputation for attempting to will things into being through force of edict. Surely in this case one might take the elevation of the area about an isolated rail stop into a villages which once might have held a church as straining at credibility. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that with GNIS places there is only a name, type of feature, coordinates and date of addition to the GNIS database; the type of feature is not always correct, and sometimes there is no other information, and I think an article should be something more specific than "name on a map". And the status of the area is not "straining at credibility": "villages which once might have held a church" could describe parishes in England and Wales; townships (in some counties), extra-parochial places and a small number of hamlets have become civil parishes, including many with no church and some that have never been villages. That doesn't mean that each should be an article; exceptions would be the "Unnamed" parishes created as a result of the Local Government Act 1894 that usually had no buildings or population. There could be a discussion about whether to exclude some rural localities and to decide on the criteria, but that shouldn't be based on misleading comparisons with North America. Peter James (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    North America is far more instructive a comparison here than the UK, since it is a settler-colonised place similar to most of Russia. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The United States doesn't have the equivalent administrative or statistical units in rural areas. Peter James (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is really begging the question. I'm not sure this claim is even true because I cannot get a straight answer as to what a selo is that is consistent with the various spots so designated, so I cannot say that in the US there isn't something of the same ilk designated on the state level. Everything I run across says it's a village that at one time would have had an (Orthodox) church, and yet plenty of selos we've come across aren't villages and give no evidence of ever having been villages. This suggests/implies that the GNIS experience does model this, and that whatever the designation is supposed to mean, it is often enough applied in error or for some other reason not consonant with the reality of the place. Therefore the I'm-not-even-sure-it's-a-fact that it is somehow more of a legal recognition than GNIS's classification or for that matter the USPO designation of 4th class post offices does not persuade me that the situation is actually different. As far as I know, this is the first time we've undertaken a serious examination of Russian places, and the guideline has a strong Euro-American or even Anglo-American bias as to how places exist legally, so given what we are finding, I don't think selos are "typical" of obviously notable legally recognized places. What it looks like is that plenty of them fail GNG conspicuously for the usual reason that items entered from government databases are prone to fail GNG: outside of the listing (which I must insist is a primary source) there just is nothing else to go by, certainly nothing extensive and secondary. And there are plenty of examples which are quite a bit worse than this one. Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article says it's a rural locality, not a settlement, so there is not a reason to delete in the nomination. The only policy or guideline used as a rationale for deletion is IINFO, but that does not mean that for every type of thing, some must be excluded to avoid being indiscriminate. Peter James (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article says it's a rural locality, not a settlement" - then in what way does it pass GEOLAND, which is basically directed to settlements, not mere locations (which have to pass WP:GNG)? Isn't this actually a reason to delete? FOARP (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Like, did any of you Poindexters consult GMaps and GSV? It's a place. Jesus Christ. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*stares at a rutted dirt road bordered by trees for several minutes* - This is the place we're all arguing about?! There isn't even a sign! The one thing I will cop to is that the railway is no longer extant, but that hardly increases the notability. FOARP (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a strange one as 17km is on a road between two villages marked on Google Maps, namely Sinegorsk and Sanatorne neither of which have an en-Wikipedia article as far as I can see. 17km is nearer to Sinegorsk and I think it could have been mentioned there under a separate heading. However, as of now this AfD appears to be a straight choice between keep or delete as I haven't found an appropriate redirect or merge target. Therefore, I'm slightly favouring the GEOLAND argument put forward by User:Ezhiki and leaning keep. Rupples (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging into Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk seems the obvious option if merging is the outcome, the two sentences here would easily fit as one sentence in a "Selo" section. CMD (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge to the administrative district
    Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Urban Okrug would be appropriate but that is just a redirect. However, yes, you're right, a merge of the text with co-ordinates could work to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status where the other villages making up the administrative district could be listed. Rupples (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Waste of an article creation, this article is not notable. Geko72290 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment I see no consensus here, as arguments on both sides are rather weak. Ignoring GEOLAND because it's a guideline is not very persuasive to me, nor is the argument without supporting evidence that the population is the staff of a railway station. Conversely, a one-time population of 2 doesn't suggest that this meets the common-sense definition of a populated place. Further evidence as to whether this meets GEOLAND would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do think the idea to merge to
    WP:NOPAGE can definitely guide us, for a place with so little verifiable information. Merge also happens to be a decent compromise for the discussion. In absence of a merge consensus, I do think GEOLAND seems to apply with current evidence despite the low population and unnamed roads, I'd say keep as I don't think deletion is the right choice. —siroχo 05:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Merge as per this reasoning.
    talk) 11:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect/merge to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, the article amounts to a sentence that could be included on Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, and probably should be there even if this was a devleoped and well-sourced article. For even that sentence, we have such little sourced information that the article claimed 17 km was in two wrong locations in the half a decade of the article's existence leading up to this AfD. CMD (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If @Ezhiki is willing to support a compromise merge and redirect to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status I'll follow suit. I'm giving weight to Ezhiki's opinion as from what I can gather Ezhiki appears to understand the Russian language and administrative system, perhaps better than most of us here — no disrespect to other contributors. Otherwise my !vote is merely to oppose delete. Rupples (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the vote of confidence; appreciated. For the record, I've never been a fan of bulk-creating geostubs which contain little to no information beyond what's needed to satisfy our geo-notability criteria, so collecting this minimal information in one place, possibly in a table form, is totally fine by me, as long as the redirect from the title under which the article would normally reside is retained and there is no prejudice against creating a proper article as soon as someone willing to expand it beyond the bare minimum (and able to cite the said expansion) shows up. Administrative/municipal division sections or articles about the corresponding administrative/municipal division are a perfect location for that, although in some cases we'd need stand-alone lists, because some administrative/municipal divisions may host dozens to hundreds of inhabited localities. And I apologize for having been unable to continue this work myself in the past almost ten years (has it been that long? ugh), but life happens.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 20, 2023; 18:48 (UTC) 18:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status (at present the most appropriate existing article/heading) as a compromise between what I'd call a "strained" interpretation of GEOLAND and deletion. That article states 10 rural localities within the district, not too many to list, so all their names should preferably be added as well. Rupples (talk) 19:16, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/17_km,_Sakhalin_Oblast&oldid=1182106545"