Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuala Lumpurian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Ezeu 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuala Lumpurian

Neologism. Some are even original research. See Google search for result[1] . See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sentulian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherasian. Delete. At best, redirect to Kuala Lumpur. __earth (Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd recommend also deleting KLites --Wafulz 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kuala Lumpur. --Nishkid64 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Huh? My first thought was troll/hoax walled garden, but looking through the editor's edit history, I guess there's probably an innocent explanation for all this. Hopefully we'll get to hear what it is. My Alt Account 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Inspired from Londoner Why inhabitants in London can create Londoner "A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. ", why inhabitants in Kuala Lumpur cannot create a Kuala Lumpurian? If you delete Kuala Lumpurian, then Wikipedia should also delete Londoner, Parisian, New Yorker, etc. L joo 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Londoner distinguishes between two cities on two different continents, talks about things such as newspapers that are called The Londoner, and explains that the concepts of "Londoner" and "Person from London" are not necessarily identical. Can the same be said of "Kuala Lumpurian"? Or is the concept of a Kuala Lumpurian not at all divorcable from Kuala Lumpur?

      Your fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument falls over for New Yorker and Parisian for the simple reasons that the former is a disambiguation article and the latter is about a chain of department stores, and not about people from Paris at all. Uncle G 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Also don't remove AfD notices because you want to hear arguments. The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion. --Wafulz 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion" or "Articles for deletion" (Discuss & Delete are different). Hi Wafulz, I'm still new to Wikipedia, are you a Wiki-administrator? Why call it "Articles for deletion" and then "The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion." If the whole purpose is to have a discussion, then it should be called "Articles for discussion" ? L joo 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the idea from from Londoner, very simple. I believe I can create a page called Kuala Lumpurian. May I know why must delete? If anyone think the content is weak, feel free to add, why must delete? L joo 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Uncle G provides a pretty strong argument that deals with "Londoner" specifically- maybe you could address that? --Wafulz 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine, forget about Londoner, Parisian, New Yorker, etc, may I create page Kuala Lumpurian? L joo 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No you can't. You haven't actually said anything about why this article should be kept. It's just a word for someone from Kuala Lumpur, and nothing more- the rest of it is just history of Kuala Lumpur, which is covered in Kuala Lumpur itself. --Wafulz 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't actually said anything about why this article should be kept. Kuala Lumpurian is a name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" or "peoples living in Kuala Lumpr". Just to have a name. L joo 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete please as per the others WP:NOT (Ich bin einer Largoan.) :) Dlohcierekim 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" Btw, if Kuala Lumpurian or Lumpurian is not the best name, feel free to give a better name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur", anyone? L joo 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this term even exist? Or are you just making it up for the sake of having a name. If you've made it up, then it should be deleted as original research. If the term is a real term for those living in Kuala Lumpur, then redirect to Kuala Lumpur, just like every other "An x is a person from y" article. For examples, see:
  • Except
I'm saying this based on Wikipedia not being a dictionary or random collection of information, which is an official policy. --Wafulz 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Existence is not sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article. The term, like Largoan, is not in sufficient use to merit a Wikiepdia article. You could make up as many words as you liked as a word meaning someone from a particular town. Wikipeida is not an indsecriminate collection of words made up. :) Dlohcierekim 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Londoner: A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. Although the term Londoner is generally accepted as covering all people from Greater London, it is sometimes used to mean more narrowly a 'Cockney', and tradition has it that true Cockneys are only those who are born within the sound of Bow Bells (i.e., the peal of the church bells of the parish church at St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, London). Londoners come from a broad range of geographic and ethnic backgrounds. They speak with a wide variety of accents including Cockney, Received Pronunciation and Estuary English. Londoners often have a very distinctive accent, quite distinct from the rest of England.

I'm still confuse, why Londoner is ok, why Kuala Lumpurian is not ok? L joo 02:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability. :) Dlohcierekim 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that, and the fact that people actually use the term "Londoner." My Alt Account 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Londoner is the only notability in the world, the rest are not. Is this a good reason to delete? L joo 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really called Kuala Lumpurian? Why not Kuala Lumpuran? Or Kuala Lumpurese? Or KLites? Why Kuala Lumpurian? Personally, I've never heard the word Kuala Lumpurian. Much less on Sentulian, Gombakian, etc. __earth (Talk) 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It can be "Lumpurese", "Lumpuran", "Kualas", "Lumpurian", "Orang KL", "KLites", etc, etc. L joo 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless there's evidence that "Kuala Lumpurian" is used by more than a few bloggers. Its use isn't established, for example in any journalism among the Google hits (for a comparison, see Mumbaikar), so I don't see that there's a worthwhile starting point for either an article or a redirect at the moment. Mereda 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(for a comparison, see Mumbaikar) Mumbai population is roughly 20 or maybe 30 times more than Kuala Lumpur, surely you win on Google hits. Btw, a total 132,000 hits in Google for Mumbaikar, this number represents less than 0.01 per cent of the total Mumbai population. L joo 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not so much for the size of the population. The problem is, is "Kuala Lumpurian" a real word? Hence, the neologism reasoning. __earth (Talk) 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, we have 306 Google hits for Kuala Lumpurian. Some bloggers used it, but it is only a beginning, developing. L joo 12:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There's only 69 entries as shown in the nomination [2]. A good number comes from Wikipedia and its mirrors. The rest from blogs. Furthermore judging for your contribution (Sentulian, Gombakian, Cherasian etc), it's highly likely its a neologism. __earth (Talk) 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My Google showed 257 hits. Anyway, English is not the only language in Malaysia, naming is too difficult. "Orang KL" showed 558 hits. L joo 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete The Penangite article has an "Expand" tag on it. Why wouldn't this article merit the same treatment? Maybe Penangite needs to be nominated for AfD also. As for "neologism", except for a few widely known Anglicisms, it's always hard to figure out what to call people from a particular non-English/American city. I do agree that, unless a significant article could be written, almost anything that you could say about "Kuala Lumpurians" could be inserted into the Kuala Lumpur article. --Richard 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conclusion

So? L joo 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you want to know what the conclusion of the AfD debate is. The official answer is:The debate has not been closed (concluded) yet. The unofficial answer is: The article will probably be deleted in a few days.
First off, regarding your point about "the purpose of AfD is discussion", the point is we are not just voting. Instead, we are discussing whether or not to delete this article. So far the discussion is leaning overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. Some AfD's are close calls. This one doesn't seem to be one of those.
AFD nominations stay open for 5 days unless an early close is indicated. This nomination was started on 12 September and therefore would normally stay open until 17 September. However, discussion so far is pointing towards an early close. There are no "Keep" votes and even if you (L joo) voted "Keep", the consensus is running overwhelmingly against you.
If you could show at least a handful of English sources that used the word "Kuala Lumpurian" or a variant thereof, you could defeat the charge of "neologism". However, you would still have the Wikipedia is not a dictionary argument to deal with. To be encyclopedic, the article would have to describe how Kuala Lumpurians are different from residents of other Malaysian cities (such as Penangites) or how they are perceived to be different. All this would have to be sourced to reliable sources, of course.
If this article is deleted, don't lose heart. You can re-create it provided that the new article addresses the issues discussed here. If it doesn't, it is likely to be re-nominated for AfD again.
Please don't take any of this personally. We are only interested in maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. We would be glad to re-consider an expanded, improved and sourced article if you write one.

--Richard 08:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Very very helpful statement, thank you very much Richard. L joo 09:50, 14 September 2006 (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.