Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drigluidjunblégruidjundlei

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drigluidjunblégruidjundlei

No google hits. Unverifiable. —Cryptic (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above plus the second sentence is nonsense. Who elected it? CambridgeBayWeather 01:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Voters, presumably. Kappa 01:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless some reliable source can be found for this information. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be sourced. --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The world's strangest place name would have to be LLANFAIRPWLLGWYNGYLLGOGERYCHWYRNDROBWLLLLANTYSILIOGOGOGOCH. TheMadBaron 04:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. All villages are notable. Article wikified and unsourced second sentence deleted. Someone can put in the geographical coordinates, population, football team, principal exports, etc. at their leisure. -EDM 06:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  If I had been able to find any evidence whatsoever that this place existed, I would have cleaned it up myself. Do you have a reference? —Cryptic (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  Nope. Just assuming good faith, don't y'know. I'm not surprised to find no google hits for this "village." Maybe someone with access to a good academic library, the paper kind, can find a Malaysian gazetteer. Or maybe someone wants to cough up the cash to look it up here. -EDM 06:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  "All villages are notable" is a bizarre claim. An article about a village Google's never heard of seems unlikely to be expanded. Oh, the world's strangest place name turns out to be Shitterton.... TheMadBaron 08:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  It is a pretty bizarre claim, it's quite surprising that it would have such solid support. Kappa 09:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE. This is Sashanan all over again...Voice of All (talk) 06:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, as per Cryptic. – AxSkov (☏) 07:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Apyule 09:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have left a message with the two Wikipedians who use Category:WIkipedians in Malyasia, asking them for their input. Alf ^melmac 09:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy delete in its current state as a substub. For our overly loving voters, remember that Wikipedia can only have articles that are verifiable. All attempts thusfar of verifying have failed. Given the silliness in the first version, it's probably a good idea to check one's assumption of good faith against the execution on the screen. Once unsourced, irrational claims start showing up, there is evidence of bad faith to counter your assumption of good faith. Geogre 11:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't turn things into speedy candidates just by removing unverified parts. Kappa 11:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? "Unverified parts" are to be considered false until proven otherwise. Wikipedia:Assume good faith is about intentions, not actual contents. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You and Geogre may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Unverified_material_doesn.27t_count.3F. Kappa 13:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That's some very unwholesome rules lawyering coming from someone who disrespects official inclusion policy with just about every vote. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe it is damaging to wikipedia if editors, especially Afd voters and admins, have widely differing interpretations of what are supposed to be strictly defined criteria. Kappa 14:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean if we don't agree with you? Kappa, I'm not very interested in Yet Another Discussion Framed by the Include-All folks where it is impossible to make headway. I will agree with Tony Sidaway on one point: the reason one is an admin is that one is trusted to make interpretations. If one shows that one cannot be trusted to interpret, then that one should no longer be an admin. When this hoax was stripped down to its non-vandalized elements, it was a substub. However, you will note that I did not actually go ahead and delete the article, which I will do if I feel that it is an unambiguous speedy delete candidate. However, you are prepared to fight the whole project to keep something that in every respect seems to have been a prank? No, I don't agree with you. Geogre 16:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Unverifiable and non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE. I've been living in Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia for 19 of out of 23 years of my life and have NEITHER seen NOR heard any place called Drigluidjunblégruidjundlei. This is most likely a hoax. Plus, if there were a place called a chore-to-type kind of place, Google would've probably have caught it up. __earth 14:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  14:19:13, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
• Sorry that my sarcasm "all villages are notable" seems to have spawned a mudfight. Sheesh. Delete in view of informed comment (the only one in this discussion) by User:Earth above. -EDM 17:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete my thanks to __earth for responding to the call. Alf ^melmac 17:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even in its initial state this article was an unverifiable substub. No prejudice against recreation if there's actual sources involved. I'd like to put in a slight nuance "Existing village are notable. Articles that state more than their location and population are helpful to wikipedia.". - Mgm|^(talk) 18:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Rumor has it that the parents of Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 are originally from this small Malaysian village. Sadly, this cannot be verified, and Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. —RaD Man (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: article creation was the only edit by an anonymous editor. If there really is such a village, and it really deserves an article, it can always be recreated later with rather more proof of existence. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I would have been willing to entertain the idea that the place does indeed exist, and just isn't mentioned on that "all-inclusive" (/sarcasm) Internet, but based on __earth's comments, my faith in that possibility has been very much weakened. Plus, there's no notability established. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:45, 15 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.