Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shendy, Kazakhstan

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. ✗plicit 01:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shendy, Kazakhstan[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, sourced only to GEOnet. BEFORE search did not return significant coverage or documented legal recognition. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There are many online references for Шенды Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't cast votes like the one above because it's really not helpful at all - You cannot just say "search the name of the place in Cyrllic script" as though it is an actually answer. No, you tell us what the actual coverage is if you think it is enough to keep the article. Looking at the sources, not speaking Russian/Kazakh, I don't see what it is that's supposed to be a keep reason here. Remember, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants something to be kept to show why it should be. FOARP (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GEONet Names Server (GNS) spam. GNS is not reliable for whether a place is a populated place per the recent consensus on this at RSN, and cannot be used to show legal recognition. Cannot find any sources, still less evidence of legal recognition. Searching "Шенды" gives a lot of GBooks hits... but they're in works of fiction like the Russian translation of "Sea of Shards" by Joe Abercrombie. It seems that "Шенды" is a Cyrillic version of a number of non-Russian names which creates a very large number of false positives. Going to the location given in the article, I see what appears to be oil wells/a construction site (note particularly the photo and the blackened ground around the site in the over-head view), not a populated place. Google maps does have another site named "Shendy" a short distance away, but this is an empty field on the opposite side of the train-tracks to the village of Tosbulak. Unless they're going to actually present sources showing legal recognition or significant coverage, Eastmain's "keep" is effectively a null-vote. FOARP (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that there is an actual community here as the article claims. Not at a level that merits an article at least. Not every spot on the earth that someone has assigned some name to is notable enough to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There probably was a community at the location given in the article, but the reference is not sufficient, and search results are not about this place. The photo is probably of a compressor station elsewhere in the district, as indicated by the caption and coordinates in the URL. Anon3406 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any coverage of the location from WP:RS. LearnIndology (talk) 15:05, 16 January 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.