Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon


 * 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. Naleksuh (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This title is too gibberish, as Google search does not bring anything up as the default result, possibly as WP:G1.  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel like we could merge this somewhere, perhaps to a list of longest words or to whatever work originated its use. BD2412  T 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - the subject of the article is clearly notable (longest Greek word, appears in Guinness World Records per the article) but there seems to be a technical restriction preventing the article appearing under the Greek name. I'm not sure what that restriction is, but this is a reasonable way to deal with it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the nominator has not advanced a valid argument for deletion. Perhaps the article should be renamed but that's a matter for WP:RM, not AFD. Spicy (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Yes, a very long name with some sourcing difficulty, but otherwise is completely notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Difficult to search for, as it kills Google due to length and transliteration errors, but appears to have gotten some scholarly attention. Hog Farm Bacon 21:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for reasons cited by User:Ivanvector and User:Foxnpichu. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm This is me thinking on this as an encyclopedic topic for the english encyclopedia. But also deferring to and respecting the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to listen to a decently thought-on deletion rationale on this. This, however, is not a proper deletion rationale (clearly not G1, not a great attempt at WP:BEFORE, given that the Google search system is known to get overloaded by long strings), and should probably be closed fairly quickly. Hog Farm Bacon 21:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The rationale is bad, but I am not seeing sources that suggest the topic is notable, outside of it being in the Guiness book of records. But most Guiness records don't need separata articles, just inclusion on some list. But considering the flood of speedy keeps above, this may be a trainwreck (depends on whether the discussion closer reads the arguments, because they are not particularly impressive either). I suggest this is speedy closed and renominated to discuss the subject's notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Piotrus. Normally I would vote to redirect, but who would ever type this? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Longest_words, where this subject is already covered in appropriateha!! length. Reyk YO! 09:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, sort of. Trying a web search on a descriptive phrase that the search engine can digest (Aristophanes long word would do) will throw up a very large number of pages where this word is mentioned, typically as a curiosity – the ones I've checked neither provide in-depth treatment nor are particularly reliable (think mentalfloss), but there's lots of them. Are they enough to establish notability? Don't know, probably not. But if you consider that a sizeable chunk of this long-ish Wikipedia article is about the various translations of this word into English, that the Classical play that the word appears in has been translated into at least dozens of languages, and that translating this in each of those instances would have been a challenge, the sort of challenge that translators like to write about, then it appears likely there should be decent literature on the topic out there, for those who know where to look. Regardless, the question now is not whether to keep, but where to keep: in a separate article, or as a section of another one. Apart from the largely theoretical question of stand-alone notability, the practicalities of merging don't look promising. Longest words is a long list that can reasonably only accommodate a mention of this long word rather than any other sort of content about it. Assemblywomen is a better target, but if the whole of the article were merged there, the end result would appear to be placing undue emphasis on that word. And paring down before merging isn't much of an option either, as almost all of the content is essential – what the word means and how it translates into English, and that appears long only because the topic is a word that is long. All in all, keeping it as it is seems like the lesser evil here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, another source, The Classical Journal. Right cite (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the more I thought about it the more it seems WP:TRIVIA and not even trivia that I can pronounce or use. This is the English encyclopedia - I remind myself. Clarityfiend probably has the most succinct rationale Normally I would vote to redirect, but who would ever type this?. With roughly 4100 views since January I could be wrong. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG based on above.★Trekker (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per those above (especially Uanfala). The topic is a notable piece of etymological history. An inconvenient title is not a reason to delete something. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the sources above and the outcome of the previous discussion, since that time not a single thing has changed that would suggest it is less notable than it was. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seventyfiveyears this is yet another in a long line of deletion nominations you've made (at least at RfD) where you've completely failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. I very strongly urge you to read and understand that page, and the other policies and guidelines you have been pointed to multiple times before nominating any other pages for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * keep: not a bad article just need a translator or just a little correction and rename. view,Tbiw (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep — tried saying it out & it sounded like a spell for evoking a demon, but nonetheless, it is definitely notable & it possesses encyclopedic value & it wouldn’t hurt the encyclopedic if the article is retained. Celestina007 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.