Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kochaly

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kochaly[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion by an editor who is local to the region, saying the village does not exist. I declined the speedy as there are some Google hits and it's not a blatant hoax, and the original nominator has replied on my Talk page to say it's really only a farm and wants to AfD it - so I'm doing it on their behalf. The rationale can be found at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 8#Kochaly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contrary to the comment in the article's history, there are numerous google hits for the place, including its weather and job listings. If it's a farm that seems a bit over-the-top, since farms in my country (USA) don't have many internet listings for their weather and job opportunities - maybe a farm with all that is notable for that alone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. If the location given is accurate, a visit to one of the mapping sites is revealing. Even on the fairly high resolution available it is impossible to establish that there is anything significant there. Frankly, that throws into serious doubt all the other Google references - which are only generating results for the general location supplied to them. This smells like a deliberate hoax, I'm afraid. AJHingston (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a difficult one, perhaps suffering from the lack of verifiability. If it once was a village, I'd say keep, but so far I can't find evidence of its existence. However, there are frequently multiple spellings of foreign proper nouns in English throughout a history of any given topic. Right now I can't find anything in this region for any spelling variations for what might be the same topic.--Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a good sign that the GEOnet Names Server listing for the village marks it as unverified. The Google listings probably provide the same weather and job listings for any place in the GNS, and there don't seem to be any other sources verifying the existence of the place. I don't think a source which explicitly says "unverified" counts for WP:V. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 23:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - we have a plausible assertion that it doesn't exist, and no convincing evidence that it does. I don't find the Google hits persuasive - once a place is listed, all kinds of sites pick it up. We had an article about a non-existent Shropshire village called "Monvilla" which was deleted at AfD as a hoax three years ago, but Google still finds references to it. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My nomination wasn't a Delete !vote, as it was just a procedural one on behalf of another editor. But I can find no verification that there really is a village there, and as nobody else seems to be able to, I think it's a WP:V fail too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2011 (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.