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 per overwhelming snowfall. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lopadotemachoselachogaleok...[edit]

Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Word not found in dictionary ,not used and is one in another language of a fictional dish.No citations have been given.Hopefully copied it right.Clearly not notable and not used.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would of been sensible to mark the article ((notability)) rather then raising an Afd. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of verifiability in reliable sources, even though it's interesting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, if this gets deleted, you bet it's going to WP:DAFT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Already in Unusual articles. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Guinness source and presence of other sources; seems to be notable enough now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge to Aristophanes' Assemblywomen. Not notable in and of itself, but certainly worthy of inclusion in the article from the play it is contained in. Having read Assemblywomen two quarters ago, I know there's at least one paper that follows the transliterations and the various 'versions' of the word in the most prominent translations. Finding it on the internet would probably be ... hard, for obvious reasons, so I'll probably have to put finding it off until tomorrow when I can stop at the library. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, redirect. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional Keep notable I think, but hard to check.Nick Connolly (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it should definitely be moved. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no strong opinion on this one way or another (as I am almost solely a Wiktionary contributor), but Wiktionary is just wrapping up a couple of conversations about this word at our requests for verification and requests for deletion pages, if anyone is interested in reading. In short, the policy for dead languages is that a single attestation merits inclusion, so the Ancient Greek spelling stays. Also, we've moved the romanization to a spelling used in a famous translation of the play (which is different than the Wikipedia article title), as nonce words in important works are often kept as well. Just thought someone might want to know. Atelaes (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its claim as the longest Greek word should be referenced, but if it is true, should meet the notability criteria. --76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of sources. Finding sources on it is very tough too. Undeath (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. While nobody is going to type "Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon" into a search engine, making a section about it in an article about Aristophanes is inappropriate, and I think it would detract from an article about Assemblywomen in the same way that putting a section in the Odyssey about "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" would be inappropriate. However, a link could be placed in those articles (hopeuflly, one of those shortened links like

a 171-letter word. As the article points out, the significance of this addition by Aristophanes has been looked at by other scholars (an explanation is in order for Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (philologist). Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cant see no sources - looks hoaxy to me and I couldnt find anything on google Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a hoax, but it's impossible to use the entire word as a search term in Google. Here are some hints at potentially helpful sources: [1], [2], [3]. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero chance it is a hoax. Pick up a copy of Assemblywomen. I deeply, deeply urge the closing admin to disregard this probably-in-good-faith, yet obviously-deep-misunderstanding-of-the-subject matter comment. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Subject is in the Guinnes Book of World Records, 1990 ed, pg. 129. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Guinness Book reference, plus the connection to a classic writer, establishes notability. I agree this isn't a word anyone is going to bother to search for, but it is something that might be read by someone reading the article on the author. 23skidoo (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable to Guinness Book of records. Longest words ever to appear in literature. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the numerous references that have been put forward. Bikasuishin (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Changing from merge because sources have been found. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Seems weird at first. But is notable and useful Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep notable a part of a historical work. Educational, highbrow which should be prized as a contrast to a lot of other articles on wiki. special, random,Merkinsmum 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no matter how ridiculously long it is, it does exist and has historical value--Pewwer42  Talk  22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This fictional dish was invented by the famous ancient Greek dramatist Aristophanes, who lived from 456 BC – ca. 386 BC. I'd say any work created by a famous guy in ancient times that is still remembered today is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.--134.139.135.84 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deserves mention in wikipedia more than 90% of what's already in here.Helixweb (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep- a curiosity which has survived approx. 2,400 years and counting. I'm sympathetic to the nominator, because it fails the Google test, but it has become clear that it's an exception in that regard, for the obvious reasons. Mr. IP (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As strong a keep as I can convey. Historical, survived thousands of years, in Guinness, scholarly, clearly notable, etc. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (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.