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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.