Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Əngəlan


 * 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   keep. We now agree that the fact that there once was an inhabited village of that name is verifiable, in particular thanks to the print source cited by Ezhiki. A more general discussion about whether the inclusion in certain geographical databases is sufficient for verifiability should probably be held elsewhere.  Sandstein  18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Əngəlan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this stub on a purported village in Azerbaijan for deletion because I believe it fails WP:Verifiability. I hope that the usual arguments about all populated places being notable or not can be put aside here.
 * Wikipedia's verifiability policy says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
 * The article has a wikilink to GEOnet Names Server and no other sources. The questions here are; did the government workers who key in data on millions of placenames ever make mistakes? If they do make mistakes, how are we to know?
 * I did a Google search for this place; it returns one website, a computer-generated page typical of sites that use GNS data to sell product. A search by the alternate spelling--and it should be noted here that the United States Board on Geographic Names mandate is to provide the correct spelling--Angelan, is contaminated by hits for the personal name Angela. I searched by both names of the rayon Angelan supposedly lies within, and got only the usual computer-generated hits by the commercial websites, but nothing by a human being. There are no News Books or Scholar hits for this place. I did a number of other Google searches and, tellingly, there is not one website in Azeri that mentions this word. I also looked on maps.
 * As can be seen, this is quite unusual; most places listed by GNS have easily found evidence of their existence.
 * For those that worry that deleting this one stub because it cannot be verified might unleash a wave of AfDs, let me just say that I am not contemplating such a disruptive move. A look at the articles I have created or worked on should show that I am not against articles on obscure places. My goal or agenda (Option 3) is to make Wikipedia better than TravelingLuck, FallingRain and their ilk by having encyclopedic treatments of populated places.
 * Thank you for carefully considering this nomination. Again, please confine the arguments to WP:V (and maybe WP:PSTS), not WP:N. If anybody can find the slimmest evidence this populated place exists, I'll withdraw this nomination. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Carlossuarez46 is an editor of longstanding, so I trust the verity of his articles. I'll agree, however, that Əngəlan is unlikely as a name for a village, since we don't use the schwa except for showing a pronunciation (you know, the "Ə", the upside-down "e", the "uh sound").  Using an Ə is not an acceptable substitute for showing that a Cyrillic spelling could be rendered in different ways.  The title should be moved to whatever is reflected in English language descriptions of the place.  Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Carlossuarez46 is indeed an editor of longstanding, but he is getting his information from a single source. My argument is that the source has misled him. As for moving it, Google has no problem with finding articles on Əsgəran, for example. If you look it the category, there are about a hundred others that start with Ə, out of the 3,300 or so Azerbaijan village articles most use the Latinized Azeri script. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment All I can say is "WhƏt thƏ fƏck??" How is anyone supposed to search for a town that begins with "Ə"?  I don't recall seeing that on my keyboard.  Don't know that Carlos has made all of those messes, but I see about 100 articles that should be moved to English Wikipedia type titles.  Mandsford (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were the only problem, a move or redirect would be appropriate. But if something doesn't exist, a move or redirect is inappropriate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if the existence of this village cannot be verified by a source other than a Geonet database or any other database that uses it without modification. If verifiable, Redirect to article on containing district, which itself is in dire need of content, until more information about the village is found. A list of villages should be created in the rayon article that encompasses this village. --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It can, as there are 2 cites now, the nominator has been too lazy to search for them in order to push his WP:POINT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Falling Rain gets its information from the same database. Still, these need to be redirected until we can say more than their location. These should not really have been created in the first place. --Polaron | Talk 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I searched assiduously. Furthermore, my point is that you, the article creator, are required to provide sources, by Verifiability, a policy. Instead, you have created thousands of stubs with only one primary source, and you just wikilinked to GEOnet Names Server. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as a Google search with the Anglicized name, which is Angalan, comes up with lots of entries. I agree with Mandsford that this is English Wikipedia, most of us in the English-speaking world don't have keyboards that can type the Latin Azerbaijani alphabet, and that the town should be listed as it would be written in English, which is Angalan. --Friejose (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if the town can't be verified to exist? Those Angalan Google hits are mere artifacts. There are people in India by the name, and a place in the Philippines. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Expand -Falling rain is a pretty awful source in terms of reliability of data and I've even gone so far as to propose that the site is blacklisted. However I believe it verifies the existence of the place as do any other of the maps or auto generated NGIS site. My only concern is it does not give information on the status of the site, e.g it could be hamlet or little significance. Initially I think the article is fine, providing it can be expanded later once information becomes avilable. The Bald One      White cat 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Angalan" in Azerbaijan does in fact exist: Falling Rain Data. Compare the coordinates there with Carlos' article and you will see that they coincide. Keep and place a redirect. De728631 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Failing Rain gets their data from GNS, how does that help verify the place? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this is a WP:POINT nomination. I have had a long conversation (see our talk pages) with the nominator and his problems with GeoNet Names Server are the same problems we have with any other reliable source. I told him how to find sources, but rather than do so, he prefers drama here and wastes everybody's time. A simple google search on the alternate name "Angalan" shows 2760 hits, including maplandia, fallingrain, Yet Another Atlas, and Travelpost. Under Naming conventions (geographic names), if there is a Widely accepted English name for a place, it is used, if not the local form. Given that the nominator is not even convinced that the place exists (his WP:OR vs. reliable sources) it seems hardly fit to assume that there is a widely accepted English form. Hence, the local one is used for the title of the article. If we don't like that result, perhaps we should revisit the naming convention and move the article to one of the alternative names. Deletion is wholly unwarranted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. My concerns are warranted; there is not one Azerbaijani website that so much as uses the words Əngəlan, Angelan or Angalan. Maplandia, Fallingrain, Yet Another Atlas, and Travelpost all use GEOnet Names Server data to populate their websites, and therefore cannot be considered independent of GNS. How does it benefit Wikipedia to become a mirror of GNS? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this 2007 USGS meeting, the GNS database is never purged of a placename. The exact quote is; "Also the GEONet Names Server, like the GNIS, is cumulative, i.e., name listings are not deleted except in cases of obvious duplication."  The mandate of GNIS and GNS is to provide correct spelling for consistency within the US government's own agencies.  Using this database as the sole source for a Wikipedia article is inappropriate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FallingRain gives populations and elevations - getting those from the GNS database? Where, how? That data isn't in there, so they must be getting it elsewhere. The problem you have is that people make mistakes, hence all sources that have humans are unreliable, that's a WP:POINT. After Dewey Defeats Truman, we cannot trust newspapers or at least the Chicago Tribune, right? Your insistance to delete a existing place because of possible error by humans working at GeoNet combined with a schwa in the initial position stretches good faith. I (and another editor) have provided verification with reliable sources - sufficient to show the place exists; you now have the burden to show that these sources are both wrong. Another google search, for "Angelan" and "Azerbaijan" but excluding "Merkel" (the "Angela" most contaminating the results, no offense to the German premier), finds plenty of other links to the place, including the USGS which seems to be interested in mining the region. But of course, the USGS, and everyone else could be in error - then let's not have any articles referenced to fallible sources, like newspapers, books (lots of errors in books), magazines (Hitler's diaries showed up there), the web (notorious for mis- & dis-information), or basically anything other than Holy Writ (and even that requires faith). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FallingRain get the elevations elsewhere, based on the coordinates. They estimate the population very crudely, using the general population density of the area. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The USGS says "...the Angelan, the Kebadzhar, the Kedabak and the Tauz regions of Azerbaijan." This USGS document makes several errors right in that sentence. First, Kebadzhar is a probable misspelling of Kelbadzhar, which has been destroyed. Kebadzhar does not appear in GNS! Neither does Kedabak, which is a probable misspelling of Kedabek, which is Gadabay Rayon. Tauz is an alternative spelling of Tovuz Rayon. GNS says all but Angelan are rayons (regions). So the USGS document is not reliable, according to GNS, or GNS is not reliable, according to the USGS document. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Errors occur, so they way Wikipedia deals with it is to require multiple reliable secondary sources. By using only GNS, (which may or may not be reliable, but is primary) and no others you may have introduced errors into Wikipedia. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the fallingrain source: as the nominator says that he (assuming that roosters are "he" :-) isn't questioning the idea of this being notable, and as we've gotten a good source for its existence, I don't see why not to keep it, whether or not we can type ə very easily. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read above as why FallingRain is not reliable. Polaron is a major authority here on Wikipedia on geographic places and particularly on population. (Although I see you have experience on US places.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How does one know whether it can be expanded or not? Why do these need stand-alone articles? Is it inappropriate to make a table of them in the containing municipality/district where one can list name, coordinates, population? Put them in a list first then expand once information about the culture and history is found. --Polaron | Talk 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (Based on Verifiability - which was the criteria cited for AfD nomination) and Expand.
 * The U.S. Department of Defense National Geospatial Intelligence GEOnet Names server is a reliable/verifiable source. NGA receives their information from aerial and satellite photogrammetric (spelling?) analysis, and corroborates it by local field investigations or reports from foreign intelligence.  According to NGA, "Əngəlan" is the current  foreign official spelling, and "Angalan" is the Anglicized version.
 * If you Google "site:.az", you receive the various Azerbaijan web sites of which Google is aware.
 * NOTE: the language is "Azerbaijani" a.k.a. Azeri which is a Turkic/Altaic language.  Over time "Azeri" has been written in Arabic, Cyrillic (Russian) and Latin alphabetic scripts, so there are lots of transliterations, especially for Place Names.
 * "Əngəlan" can be "Əнгəлан" and "Angalan" can be "ангалан" (from http://www.russianlessons.net/dictionary/transliterate.php).
 * If you Google "site:.az ангалан" you receive: http://www.day.az/forum/index.php?showtopic=33738&st=40&p=864568&#entry864568, the entry:

Aligeydar Рейтинг: 5 Просмотр профиля сообщение Aug 1 2006, 14:21 Сообщение #58

Забугорник

Группа: Members Сообщений: 1,551 Регистрация: 2-April 05 Из: Kiel, Deutschland Пользователь №: 3,881

Фаррух, извини за оффтоп, а почему нету села Ангилан или же Ангалан Хызинского района в твоем списке. На месте этого села сейчас голые холмы. Её ликвидировали как не рентабельную в советское время. Это село есть в списке даглинских сёл в книге "Даглыларын китабы" Фирудина Гурбансоя. Я родом из Хызинского района, отец из села Хызы, мать из села Ангилан (Ангалан). Буду рад за ответ в ЛС.

П.С. Ещё раз приношу извинения за оффтоп. Прошу не удалять этот пост.

Сообщение отредактировал Aligeydar - Aug 1 2006, 14:22"
 * Translated:

Aligeydar Rating: 5 View Profile

message Aug 1 2006, 14:21 Message # 58

Zabugornik

Group: Members Posts: 1.551 Registration: 2-April 05 From: Kiel, Deutschland User №: 3,881

Farrukh, apologized for offtop, but why not Angilan village or district Angalan Hyzinskogo in your list. At the site of the village now bare hills. Her eliminated as a cost-effective than in Soviet times. This village is on the list daglinskih villages in the book "Daglylaryn Book" Firudina Gurbansoya. I come from Hyzinskogo area of the village Hyzy father, mother from the village Angilan (Angalan). I would be glad for the response in the LS.

PS Once again I apologize for offtop. Please do not delete this post.

Message edited Aligeydar - Aug 1 2006, 14:22
 * So there are various alternative transliterations (switching vowels "AaƏəEeIi" or "ааƏəээии").
 * If you Google "site:.az +Ангилан" you get some more hits:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.az+%2B%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&hl=en&filter=0

... much of the on-line or published texts you are going to find mentioning the "Əngəlan" village (in its various transliterations) are going to be in Russian Cyrillic scripts, in you figure out what the name is in Azeri Arabic/Turkish script ... then you can probably find some more (older "pre-Russian" ) references. LeheckaG (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So the short answer is; the village is gone. I believe this vindicates the policy requirement at Verifiability that all articles have reliable sources, and the policy requirement at No original research not to create articles with only primary sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal; what is gone (from when it was under Soviet jurisdiction) was a separate Soviet local administration which was likely incorporated into the City-Town of Khizi which is reportedly about 3 mi away. It is still an officially recognized populated place (in a relatively unpopulated region). I believe the U.S. Department of Defense National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) qualifies as a reliable non-primary source. In addition, the populated place/village is apparently cited in several foreign (non-English) language texts. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete -
 * As has been discussed ad nauseum, Falling Rain, GEOnames, etc. are not reliable secondary sources. Thus it is OK to use them for data, but it is not OK to base an entire article solely on those sources, per WP:OR.
 * The village doesn't exist anymore, so it is extremely unlikely that reliable secondary sources will ever be available for it. Do we really want an article that will say only "Angelan is or was a village (or some other kind of settlement) in the Khizi Rayon of Azerbaijan." in perpetuity?
 * If this village really is notable, why not just mention it the Khizi Rayon article? I can't see any reason why it has to be separated out to its own article.
 * "All places that have ever existed are notable" is not a policy (or even a good idea).
 * Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - Are you seriously questioning the U.S. government (NGA.Mil GEOnet names) as a reliable/verifiable source with regard to WP:V? THAT IS NOT WHAT WP:OR says at all - please re-read and cite a specific complete sentence if you sincerely believe it does? Again, what is apparently "gone" is just the former Soviet administration, the populated place/people still exist there. There are many "notable" North American "city" articles based on U.S. Census Bureau Census Designated Place estimates/statistics which have similar or smaller populations. Yes, a proper article requires people searching for, translating, and citing Azeri texts from either Arabic or Cyrillic scripts into English - language translation is NOT WP:OR. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Doesn't quite cross the threshold of verifiability, which leaves it way short of notability. Even if we verified the existence of this village, there isn't any reason to believe that we could ever create a properly sourced article about it. Kww (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal Are you seriously questioning the U.S. DoD which pretty much has all of current information in the article? LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From it appears that it may be a mining district. --NE2 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discredited, see above. Also, primary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep! Luckily for all of you, I have a few reference books in my library dealing with the administrative divisions and inhabited localities of Azerbaijan SSR.  The 1961 book lists the village of Angelan (Ангелан) under jurisdiction of Sumqayit (which borders Khizi Rayon), so the place definitely existed then.  The 1977 book, however, no longer lists this place, so it is safe to assume it disappeared between 1961 and 1977.  A definite keep, in my opinion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't address why it needs a stand-alone article if this is all that can be said. What's wrong with treating the topic within the containing district article, which itself is in need of content. Doesn't your book say anything more than what is already in the article? --Polaron | Talk 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said this is all that can be said?! If you read LeheckaG's excerpt above, you'll see that the village is also mentioned in the "Даглыларын китабы" book by Firudin Gurbansoy.  Now, I don't have a copy of this book and I don't suppose you do, but I see nothing wrong with keeping a stub until someone who has one shows up and expands the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And why can't that content be put in the district article where you can have a blurb of few sentences for each settlement point? Also, unless that book is about this village (rather than just a passing mention), the information is likely insufficient to write a full article. --Polaron | Talk 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to that, my rationale is that we normally create separate articles for separate inhabited localities, no matter how small they are. If WikiProject:Azerbaijan members decide that merging blurbs such as this one into the articles about raions or elsewhere is a better solution, I certainly ain't gonna be the one arguing with that decision.  It is, however, out of scope of this AfD.
 * On an unrelated note, I've just added my references to the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Key word; "inhabited". Thank you for your references, though. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. As for "inhabited", in my book an "inhabited locality" is a locality that is or was at some point of time officially recognized as populated by the government of the country in which it is/was located.  Whether a locality is currently inhabited or not has nothing to do with verifiability (or notability, for that matter).  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to NGA (as of their 1999 country review/update) it is an "inhabited" village (populated place). Keep in mind this is a foreign place where English has not been the primary language.  So a 1991 DoD NGA database review/update ("Census") is a "reasonable" date for a source.  The United States census only occurs every 10 years, and although the U.S. Census Bureau publishes annual "estimates", they are exactly that - estimates based on historical trends of population demographics, age, birth and death rates.  LeheckaG (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's an actual village confirmed by many of the sources listed above and in the article. There's no such thing as a "non-notable" village.  An AfD is not a place for a meta-discussion on the inherent notability of population centers.--Oakshade (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You read that it is "bare hills" now, right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's confirmed it was a village (sorry for the use of tense that could've lead to confusion). That it's a historic village doesn't change the fact that it existed.  I created the article Midland, California which is just rubble now, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a population center. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment So now people shouldn't dare question concepts like inherent notability for villages? It's a concept that has no place whatsoever in an AFD, as it is not contained in any policy or guideline. The closing admin of an AFD should always discount arguments that are not based in policies or guidelines. As for whether this is an appropriate place, it has to be: people that believe in it and use it in AFDs have never succeeded in getting it incorporated anywhere, so it has to be refuted on an individual basis.Kww (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on a AfD nomination of WP:V, the primary rebuttal requirement is that U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet Names, which is an "official publication" of the Unites States government, be accepted as a reliable source. Specifically, see GEOnet Names Server "The GEOnet Names Server (GNS) provides access to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names' (BGN) database of geographic feature names and locations for locations outside the United States. The database is the official repository of foreign place-name decisions approved by the US BGN. Approximately 20,000 of the database's features are updated monthly." and http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/. The GEOnet Names server is NOT to be confused with other similarly-named commercial/non-official services which attempt to receive higher search engine rankings and "mislead" people by using similar web site names. If people do not accept official publications of the U.S. government within the scope of their particular organizational expertise, then I have thousands of "U.S. Census Bureau"-based Wiki articles to nominate for AfD (making a point by "proof by contradiction" see Reductio ad absurdum "reduction to the absurd").


 * "Bare hills" is a bit of an exaggeration, comparing a smaller population with a relatively larger previous population. Overall the country is supposed to be the most populous in the region (compared with its neighbors) but the particular administrative region (rayon) the village is in is the least populated one in the country, overall the country has very few heavily-populate cities (only about 11), mostly composed of many relatively smaller villages.


 * In the Wikipedia sense, "Primary" refers to "self-publication" about "oneself" not corroborated by an "independent" third-party, which mostly applies to celebrities, bands, and the like. In a formal reference citation sense, "primary" refers to using an authoritative "normative" source (going to the horse's mouth) rather than "hearsay", second-hand reports, a.k.a. secondary "informative" sources.


 * The corresponding DoD NGA GNS record was updated in 1999, so the "populated place" still existed at that time (1999) - which puts it (the populated place) as more recent than the various speculation that the "village is gone" - again what is gone is the former Soviet administation. The country achieved its current independence with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. The significance of the "1999" date (for DoD NGA) is that is when the last "significant" international activity occured for the country (specifically an international "arms" treaty which probably triggered a corresponding DoD NGA database review).


 * What the article needs is contributors taking the time to read Azeri texts in Arabic or Cyrillic alphabet scripts (which are not going to be that "common" on the "English" sites. If do not have the resources available to go through such, but I can provide a "how-to" or pointers for someone else who wants to update the various Azerbaijan/Azeri-related articles. The Az: Wikipedia has limited contributions. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to this 2007 USGS meeting, the GNS database is never purged of a placename. The exact quote is; "Also the GEONet Names Server, like the GNIS, is cumulative, i.e., name listings are not deleted except in cases of obvious duplication."  So having an entry in the GNS database after an update means only that the village was entered into the database an no duplication was discovered.
 * Did you notice that there are now 4,552 stubs in the Category:Cities, towns and villages in Azerbaijan, nearly all based on an entry in GNS? more than a 1000 have been created since the beginning of this AfD. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ëzhiki and others have enough sources to prove that the village existed at some point. That is enough to satisfy WP:V requirements. Notability should not be an issue for settlements considering that this is the kind of subject which is traditionally covered in encyclopedias, commercial paper encyclopedias often cover settlements which are very small. The fact that a village is abandoned is no more relevant to notability than the death of a subject is to his/her notability. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With regards to the AfD nomination based on WP:V, the article's cited source U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet Names server meets/exceeds Wiki's WP:V criteria for the facts included in the article - expansion of the stub article with additional facts would require citing additional references.
 * With regards to whether 4552+ AZ stub articles should exist or a better way to do things going forward is a discussion outside of the scope of the AfD. What you probably should have done is posted your issues on the WP AZ discussion rather than nominating the article for AfD based on an extremely weak argument whether a U.S. government officially-published source (DoD NGA GEOnet Names) meets WP:V criteria.  I am guessing you more likely confused GEOnet Names with other similarly-named commercial/non-official sources which try to "sell" something?  Personally, my two points are:
 * If GIS/GNIS/GNS or other databases are going to be used as sources for Wiki articles, they should be bulk downloaded into a Wiki MySQL table rather than being manually incorporated into articles' WikiText source by contributors or bots assisting them. The same argument goes for the many articles incorporating U.S. Census Bureau statistics - which creates an annual and 10-year update "problem", and for other "bulk" data sources.
 * Wiki needs better language translation and name transliteration tools, like these "pairs" should be one source page for each pair:


 * The author's original post on the article creator's talk page was: "Əngəlan gets one Google hit. Could be some sort of error by GNS--it is listed there exactly as spelled. Perhaps it would be best to db-author it? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)"
 * So gee, if Google does not find it, then it must not exist? As an American, I prefer to "bury my head in the sand" and "play ostrich" but not always.  I am interested in International events when they can affect overall global stability and cross international borders.  Google only "finds" what it can get paid to find, more an more top search results are "sponsored" i.e. paid for, or those "gaming" the search engines to try to get higher rankings in order to promote whatever commercial product they are promoting.  While "Əngəlan" is the U.S. "official" name and "Angelan" the Anglicized name for the village, they are most probably not names used locally.  Exactly how much English text does one expect to find about places using "Azeri" (similar to Turkish, historically written in an Arabic alphabet script, and under Soviet rule, in a Cyrillic alphabet script)?  I know how to search for the Cyrillic texts (see above), I am not as familiar with searching for Perso-Arabic, see Azerbaijani alphabet.  Apparently, Arabic script typically drops "unimportant" vowels from words leaving only the consonants - so either Regular expression searches need to be done, or several variations need to be searched for excluding or including various vowels until the proper names are located.
 * At the "root" of the issue: Should "foreign" (non-English) language places exist in the "English" Wikipedia?  What criteria determines inclusion versus exclusion?
 * With regard to the 1st., Wiki should have some "babelfish", see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, mechanism where there is (1) "official native language" source WikiText for an article (possibly including some "foreign" language translations), and "assisted" translations back an forth between the "native" language (like Azeri) and others (like English, and the various Azeri transliterations - Arabic, Cyrillic, Latin). The current Wiki model where each language is "siloed" into independent separate encyclopedias is "broken".  Language separation does have some advantages, but is largely broken/flawed.  So personally, I believe an "Əngəlan" article should exist, that its source WikiText should be primarily in Azeri, possibly with assisted-translations (similar to the  language template tag mechanism.
 * The heart of the issue is that Azerbaijan has about 10 million people (similar to the population of Ohio and likewise a similar geographic area 30,000-40,000 sq.mi.), and is similar to Ohio with several dozen "rayons" similar to List of counties in Ohio, and villages similar to the 691 incorporated List of villages in Ohio, and many more "towns" (a.k.a. GIS/GNIS/GNS "populated places" or U.S. Census Bureau CDPs). Ohio has about 1362 "townships" 5 to 6 by 5 to 6 mile "square" platted/surveyed subdivisions.  If you divide 10 million by 5000, you get 2000 people per "city-town-village".  I do not know whether all of the 4552+ stub articles in the category are really populated places (versus other geographic features)?  or how many are actually alternate names for the same place (like Əngəlan, also Angelan, Angalan or Ангилан, and they missed two spellings which I had cited "Angilan" and the other Cyrillic one)?  The country is still catching up to more developed countries in the Americas and Europe, so one cannot expect the degree of on-line information which is available for similar U.S. entities (like Ohio counties, townships, populated places), especially when one is searching in English where Azeri in its variants is most commonly used.
 * So the article is within the WP:V guidelines/policy by citing U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet names for a reference source, so its content should not be deleted, but there has to be a better way to provide the multi-lingual encyclopedic coverage. And exactly where does one "set the bar" as to what content to exclude or include?  I believe the Wikipedia precedence has been set that any "officially-recognized populated place" (i.e. "semi-permanent geographic gathering of people, cited from a U.S. or foreign government source) is significant enough to meet WP:N inclusion criteria (otherwise there are an awful lot of U.S. Census-designated places to delete).  Places which are not listed by a governmental source as a populated place or other significant (a.k.a. "named" feature) need to justify another criteria to meet WP:N guidelines, for instance being "historic" or of "current events" significance - like being listed on an official historic register or "making the news" for instance bridge collapses, floods, or other "disasters".  LeheckaG (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considered response. However, I can say with no uncertainty; GEOnet Names Server fails to distinguish between formerly inhabited places and currently inhabited ones. Therefore, if an editor is using GNS to create articles, s/he should still have a second source to verify that the place is inhabited or has been abandoned. There are a number of other stubs created in the last few days which claim an inhabited village where none is today, possibly hundreds. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Pointed Nomination forcing the issue of "GEOnet Names Server" and "FallingRain". If you wish them BlackListed, this is not the forum to shop for/gauge support. Quoted sources above (esp, Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)) are good enough for me that it did exist and with WP:RS's supporting WP:V. The fact that is does not now is not reason to delete. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Every nomination has a point. I nominated an article that differs a lot from the current one. Given how short the article was, it could not have been more incorrect. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of AFD is not to promote a "goal or agenda (Option 3)". Nor is it to force a wider discussion about the reliability of Gov't Reference sources. Build a concensus at Centralized discussion if you wish to confirm your feeling that a source should be blacklisted. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  05:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I said Option Three was my goal because I had been accused of trying to get all the stubs deleted. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. If you suspected somebody was entering incorrect information onto Wikipedia, stub after stub after stub, what would you do? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into next larger geographic grouping (and tag the redirect as R with possibilities). There is no question that a place with this name (or something resembling the name after transliteration) existed. At present, I don't think there is enough to warrant leaving this as a likely perma-stub. There might be some possibility it can be expanded further, but it seems unlikely. For similar situations with unincorporated communities in Michigan where all that is available is the location and a sentence or two of history, I add the available information to the appropriate township article (or occasionally a city, village or county article) and create a redirect for the place name. But I do think this nomination is a little pointy -- and if it comes down to either keeping or deleting, then there's no question this should be kept. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What does it matter that it's a ghost town now? We generally assume that "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source."  I can't give you a link, but I've seen it said all over the place that notability isn't temporary: if it were a village once (even if that were only when there was no Wikipedia), it was notable then, and thus it is notable today, as long as we can verify that it existed.  Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am persuaded that there is sufficient verification here to establish that an inhabited village did exist. As notability is permament and I believe (and plentiful precedent supports) that all verifiable villages merit articles we should keep this article. Davewild (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (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.