Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Xiang


 * 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 redirect to Lei Gong. While it seems that this is not a hoax, the lack of article development in the past 4 years (beyond this one-line sentence) hints at that there will be no article improvement in the future either. Redirection seems like the best trade-off between opinions expressed in this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 11:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A Xiang

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable or informative. No reason to have it. Possible hoax Wetman88 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete--I'm no expert, but in the absence of references or anything else, and without sources on Google, I see no reason to keep. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a hoax, but the lack of more than a few mentions suggests this isn't a widely accepted part of the legend of Lei Gong. An intriguing character.  Unlike some gods of thunder, Lei Gong knows better than to try to throw lightning bolts and drive at the same time.  Perhaps the legend of A Xiang can be part of an ad campaign for not talking on your cell while driving, or at least for having a designated driver if you go out partying.  Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At first this looked like a good solid ref, but it's lulu.com. Google isn't giving me much that isn't sourced from wikipedia. Artw (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. This AfD was one of the last actions of User:Wetman88 before he was indef-blocked for vandalism and disruption (having previously been blocked yesterday). At worst the article should be merged/redirected to Lei Gong. The given reference at that page, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Mythology by Rachel Storm (ISBN: 9780754800699), may provide more info, so I'd recommend leaving this page here for the moment in the (vain?) hope it can be expanded in future. --DeLarge (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, non notable, no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now: Its not obviously non-notable, unless someone can posit an argument to that effect. While there is no evidence for notability yet, I'd say post a notability template and give it a few months to see if someone can find some refs.  Could turn into an interesting article later. Locke9k (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.