Stepove, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast: Not a single in-depth source so fails WP:GNG , and no sourcing to show this meets WP:GEOLAND .  Onel 5969 TT me 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : my searches in Ukrainian and Russian did not turn up any in-depth sources.  The only useful source I can find is this order of the Presidium of the UkSSR "On Preservation of Historical Names and Clarification and Arrangement of Existing Names of Village Councils and Settlements of Dnipropetrovska Oblast" .  Also, if the article is kept, it should be renamed, because the title is ambiguous with the other (currently populated) village of Stepove in Synelnykove Raion (the naming issue arose following the merger of Pokrovske Raion into Synelnykove in 2015).  Akakievich ( talk ) 15:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The locality appears in Apple Maps, Google Maps, [12] , Bing Maps.  [13] It is recorded as an existing named place, and they must have got it from some geographical database, presumably from Ukraine’s official data (I can find nothing to confirm it right now: as far as I can tell, Ukrainian public topographic resources are restricted because of the invasion).  — Michael Z .  23:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that the history of it, including its abandonment is unfinished.  Not that there is a lack of proof it exists LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 00:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep, barely The Russian version of the article cites the ukase mentioned above and also cites a map which does show the town as it once existed.  The other key datum (the date of founding) is uncited but probably could be turned up by a determined researcher with better Russian than I have.  The apparent story is of a village set up in the salad days of the Supreme Soviet, which was eventually renamed after its collapse into something a bit more like a real town name, and which went away some years back for reasons unknown.  All of this would constitute OR if it were to be added to the article, but I feel there is just barely enough as it is to justify keeping something.  I have no opinion on the renaming suggestion.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the 2 keep ! votes are not based on policy, since neither points to an official source actually showing it is a legally recognized place.  Onel 5969 TT me 00:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is an ukase not an official source?  Mangoe ( talk ) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I won't oppose a Delete at this time, and let it be recreated if/when WP:GNG is met - I was able to find sources that apparently attest to the village's existance and abandoned status.  I'm not from the area and cannot be 100% sure of the validity of the sources, but assume they exist in good faith until otherwise proven.  Invinting @ Akakievich and Onel5969 : to weigh in.  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the tag.  My logic is as follows: in order to satisfy WP:GEOLAND , a source is needed which discusses Stepove when it was inhabited .  I haven't been able to find a single detail about Steopve during this period – if you find anything, please share it, because it would change my view.  Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history .  In order to satisfy WP:GNG , an in-depth source is required, which I likewise haven't found.  Akakievich ( talk ) 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Verifiability is met but notability is not.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG .  -- Wesoree ( talk · contribs ) 13:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : on basis of comments by Mangoe .  Notability also bolstered by the reliable source pointing toward this village being contested during the Ukraine war, this is enough for GNG.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please could you link to the "reliable source pointing toward this village being contested during the Ukraine war"?  I can't find it on either this page or the article in question.  Thanks, Akakievich ( talk ) 22:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , listed here as a recognised settlement (ID UA12140050130089429) within Velykomykhailivka rural hromada and thus passes WP:GEOLAND .  Mupper-san ( talk ) 21:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GEOLAND makes provisions only for populated places, therefore I'm not sure it's applicable here.  Akakievich ( talk ) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Akakievich - I think that the following sentence applies here: "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history."  Since this village is abandoned, and apparently legally-recognised according to the ukaz that you mentioned above, I believe that WP:GEOLAND still applies, though I'm unsure as I don't know if there exists any proof that the recognition overlapped with the period in which it was populated, or if such a thing is important (though I'd imagine so).  Mupper-san ( talk ) 04:30, 27 May 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: no consensus