Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angell, Arizona

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. Closing on keep based on WP:GEOLAND. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angell, Arizona

[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)

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place; satellite view indicates that this may have been a railroad junction. –dlthewave ☎ 21:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former locale and station on the Santa Fe Railroad, and Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer. Needs improving, not deleting. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my BEFORE search turned up a few sources like these. Frankly I don't see how any of the newspaper articles could be used to improve the article. Snippets like "At Angell, the force of the quake was great. In the house of the railroad agent, furniture was. moved" and "This will include the sightseeing service to the Grand Canyon from Flagstaff and Williams. Flagstaff water is being shipped to Winslow, Williams, Ash Fork, Seligman, Angell and the Grand Canyon in tank cars by the Santa Fe" mention the topic in passing but are not useable for creating article content. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because they clearly show WP:GEOLAND is met, even if the place is now historical, and WP:GEOLAND typically just requires WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 03:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this was any kind of legally recognized place. The trivial mentions above are not enough to meet GNG per GEOLAND#2. WP does not serve as a gazetteer (without regard to notability). GEOLAND specifically says "WP has features of a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." A collection of trivia does not establish notability. This may have been nothing more than a water tank during the steam engine period and/or a telegraph relay station. Certainly reasonable to mention in Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and redirect, but that article doesn't current get into this level of detail. MB 03:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a legally recognized place. does not meet GNG without indepth per GEOLAND#2.Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legally recognised settlment. This source makes a clear contrast between Angell which it calls a "small settlement" and for example Anita which it calls a "small station". This source states "Padre Canyon is deep and serpentine; a portion of Route 66 was built across it connecting the towns of Winona and the long-gone town site of Angell on the railroad’s main line. Here was the nation’s first commercial tourist camp in 1920".--Pontificalibus 09:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above sources, I own physical road maps of Arizona by three different mapping companies (H.M. Gousha Company, Rand McNally, and R. E. Donnelly) from the late 1960s and early 1970s. These are statewide maps distributed by gasoline companies for the traveling public, not maps of every ranch and station in a small region, and yet all three maps not only include Angell but explicitly mark it the same way as other cities. That seems like pretty clear evidence to me that this was a permanent settlement. (While I can't upload the maps due to copyright issues, I can provide the relevant sections over email by request if necessary.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't have to go as far back as the 1970s, because I checked the official 2019 highway map from the Arizona Office of Tourism, and Angell is included. Again, that's a tourist map for the general traveling public, not a comprehensive map of all locales. General-purpose maps have been used as both secondary sources and evidence of notability for highways as long as I can remember, since they distill a broad range of geographic data into the most relevant and significant roads and features; I see no reason not to apply the same logic for settlements. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's on a 1937 road map from the Arizona library which clearly shows buildings around the site. This passes WP:GEOLAND #1. SportingFlyer T·C 07:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unsure about this one. More research is needed. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND based on the sources provided during the discussion. There may be more sources for this that are not easily accessible online. Dartslilly (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm still a bit dubious about notability but the one thing we cannot claim is that it is a populated place. We have no evidence that it was ever anything beyond a rail junction; dots on maps really aren't good enough evidence. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geoland-related discussions often seem to rest on pretty fine distinctions about what constitutes legal recognition, if somewhere is populated and to what extent, and how much sourced information we need to be able to find to make an article worthwhile. In this case I find the evidence raised by TheCatalyst31 sufficiently compelling to opt for keeping. Hug^syrup 07:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily capable of passing GNG. XeroxKleenex (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2020 (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.