2779 km: The Russian text is no more illuminating: of the four sources, three of them are either the census or derivations of it, and the fourth is "the most complete and accurate database of RCOAD codes and numbers of the Federal Tax Service Inspectorate of Russia" (acto the Bing translation).  The station (a pair of platforms) is there, and a short ways off is what looks like a farm with a pair of house which could account for the census numbers.  I'm having a hard time seeing this as a notable place.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation ,  and Russia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Comment Here comes another WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument but if this place really is a train station, then you might wanna run this by the folks over at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Trains because last I checked even unstaffed halts (tiny train stops with no or very few buildings/amenities) can be eligible for articles.  Americanfreedom ( talk ) 14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's bordering on a WP:TNT argument given that what's there is nothing at all like what station stop articles look like.  I don't consider station stops notable per se though I would object to a redirect to the line/service in question, assuming it exists and has a listing of stops.  Mangoe ( talk ) 18:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - We have a guideline for train-stations, it's WP:NTRAINSTATION , which this obviously fails.  People should not attempt to do an end-run around it by pointing out that it is a lowest-denomination unit on the Russian census, equivalent to a census-tract, as census-tracts are excluded from giving a GEOLAND pass.  The place this is the station for (and is part of) is Kukharevo, but whilst there is an article for that on Russian Wiki, we don't have one in English.  Therefore there is no target to merge to.  Redirecting a random length in kilometres to a random village/district in Russia does not make sense.  FOARP ( talk ) 09:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Whilst there is an article for that on Russian Wiki, we don't have one in English" - would be a reason to wait.  And it isn't a random length, it's the name of the place.  Peter James ( talk ) 18:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't keep non-notable articles around just because they might be redirected to something that might be written in the future.  And yes, if you're searching "2779 km", then what you're searching for is a length in kilometres.  And this is the only thing with that name (and has been included in a list since 2018, so there is already a suitable redirect target).  Other similar titles 10,000 km and 1378 km are also unambiguous.  It's notable according to one guideline; if it is decided that there should not be a separate article, a redirect can have {{ R printworthy }} , categorisation and interwiki linking.  Has there been a discussion where it was decided these are "equivalent to a census-tract"?  Peter James ( talk ) 12:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Rural localities" are not necessarily inhabited - they are just locations, so your statement below is rather missing the point: there is nothing to be written about this place other than that it exists.  FOARP ( talk ) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not meet the notability standard for train stations.  – dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a populated place named after its approximate distance from Moscow along a railway line; the train station would be ru:2779 км (остановочный пункт) (currently a red link in a template).  The description "railway station" is a translation from ru:Остановочный пункт but the other use linked in the hatnote (a rural locality) is the relevant one here; the English article Classification of inhabited localities in Russia only lists the common types.  Peter James ( talk ) 18:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have never taken populated places as notable simply for having a population and a name.  Mangoe ( talk ) 05:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it's not even a physical station building, it's basically a dot on a map, perhaps marked by a signpost.  Desolate, barren area with no historical importance, it appears.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NTRAINSTATION .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 03:37, 25 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.

Discussion outcome: delete