Talk:Chako Paul City
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2010. The result of the discussion was kept. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Untitled edit
What'd be nice is a link to one of the Chinese media reports that actually alleges the place exists. Otherwise this might be a Western urban legend concerning a non-existant Chinese urban legend... Pseudomonas(talk) 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. The two links we do have look as though they come from the same source - both have 25,000 residents, blonde sentries at the gate... If it's only, as you say, a Western urban legend about a non-existent Chinese urban legend, I don't think it's notable enough for an article. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think there may well indeed be something in the notion that it's a Western urban legend about a supposed Chinese one (though we'll need sources that say so - watch Snopes over the next few days), but this in no way affects its notability. It's all over the media. ðarkuncoll 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's notable either way, but important that we report it properly. As you say, the likes of Snopes is a good secondary source that'll relieve us of the need to do too much OR on the ontogeny of this phenomenon. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have to do WP:OR about the 'ontogeny of this phenomenon' nor are we, as we are using reliable printed sources and merely reporting what they say (that this is unlikely to be real.) Sticky Parkin 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree 100%; it's just an interesting question that I'd like to dig into, but I know that WP is not the place to do the digging :) Pseudomonas(talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- There used to be a Chinese article on the subject here but it seems to have been removed. /FredrikT (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is probably the original Xinhua story reproduced by the Shanghaiist blog. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't have it up yet (says it may take 6 months). -kotra (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- There used to be a Chinese article on the subject here but it seems to have been removed. /FredrikT (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree 100%; it's just an interesting question that I'd like to dig into, but I know that WP is not the place to do the digging :) Pseudomonas(talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have to do WP:OR about the 'ontogeny of this phenomenon' nor are we, as we are using reliable printed sources and merely reporting what they say (that this is unlikely to be real.) Sticky Parkin 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's notable either way, but important that we report it properly. As you say, the likes of Snopes is a good secondary source that'll relieve us of the need to do too much OR on the ontogeny of this phenomenon. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Notable? edit
I don't think so, just a flash in the pan silly season story. Just because it had some coverage doesn't make it notable. 92.25.89.184 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Reason as above. Can someone please complete the deletion nomination? Thank you. 92.25.89.184 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have referred to WP:N#TEMP & WP:SENSATION. 92.25.89.184 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chako Paul City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009111035/http://www.thelocal.se:80/22476/20091005/ to http://www.thelocal.se/22476/20091005/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011081708/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,27574,26182241-23109,00.html? to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26182241-23109,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Orphan article message edit
Please help this orphan article by adding links to it in related articles and lists. Once it has an incoming link from at least one article or list, the orphan tag can be removed (disambiguation pages, redirects and draft articles do not count). Three or more incoming links are ideal. The Find link tool may help, but not in all cases.