Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kampung Chulek

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. The consensus is predominently (and unsurprisingly) per WP:GEOLAND: the second such for this nominator, I believe. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Chulek[edit]

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

No source and notability. angys (Talk Talk) 08:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is a populated place, and its existence is not disputed. Don't we keep all such cases? Please do tag it to call for sources, e.g. with {{nofootnotes}} or other tag. --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: this is just a small village that may only have about hundred population and NO NOTABILITY. angys (Talk Talk) 04:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely accept articles about such small villages in the UK or the US. Why should we treat villages in Malaysia any differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, we should create more Kampung article like Kampung Pisang, Kampung Melayu, Kampung Malaysia Raya? Only notable kampung can be kept like Kampung Pasir Putih. The UK and US “Village” you can go report it to delete if that article didn't have notability. We should more focus on the Kampar notvKampung in the Kampar Ok. Only a few peoples (maybe 0) will read that paragraph. angys (Talk Talk) 01:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not nominate small UK and US villages for deletion because they pass WP:GEOLAND, as do small villages elsewhere in the world. Verifiability for this one is provided by sources such as this and this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the Five pillars of Wikipedia, this encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, which lists all established populated places. That overall principle is elaborated at WP:GEOLAND. This article verifies the existence of the village, which serves as the address, in effect, of a "green" educational project located there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because of the link that Cullen found. I was going to vote for deletion because all I could find online was Wikipedia mirrors or passing mentions that might not refer to this location. We should keep villages, but without evidence for its existence, how are we supposed to know that there really is a village by this name? Without this link, or something comparable, we wouldn't have any reason to know that it wasn't a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the passing address mentions in several news items relating to the Nomad Adventure site based there and about a traffic accident [1], there is a slightly more substantial travelogue text which I have added as a footnote. Enough to meet basic verification and the gazetteer function. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I found this maybe not a Kampung but a small town. This can keep but I think it should be named Chulek.I cant find it in the Google Maps, maybe it should merge into Gopeng? angys (Talk Talk) 10:01, 27 December 2017 (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.