Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of I Ching hexagrams 1-32


 * 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 WP:SNOW, also see Articles for deletion/List of I Ching hexagrams 33-64 (2nd nomination). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

List of I Ching hexagrams 1-32

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

See Articles for deletion/List of I Ching hexagrams 33-64 (2nd nomination), foreign language list cruft, no encyclopedic value. Ninthlocal1985 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. archanamiya  ·  talk  23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This debate should probably be grouped with the debate for List of I Ching hexagrams 33-64 (see below). archanamiya  ·  talk  23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The I Ching is rather clearly notable, and this is a rather tightly bounded list with well-defined content: due to the structure of the I Ching, there can be no more than 64 hexagrams, and all of them have interpretations which have been established for (literally!) thousands of years. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with all the nominator's assertions. "Cruft" is one of the lamest deletion rationales ever, it basically means "I don't like it". As for being about a "foreign language" as a reason, I don't know what to say. As Zetawoof states, this is a well-written and laid out list about a highly notable topic, and not an unmaintainable indiscriminate listing. It should also be noted that the nominator is a new account whose only contributions have been a string of fairly spurious AfDs, something that always raises my hackles. --Canley (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the I Ching is clearly notable and this is a sub-article of that article. Even if this article was written entirely in a foreign language, we have a translate template for a reason. And cruft is not a valid reason for deletion. These hexagrams have immense encyclopedic value. The nominator gives no valid reason for deletion and obviously has no idea what they're talking about. --Pixelface (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong and speedy keep This is information that it is essential for an encyclopedia to have. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if you consider the I Ching to be pseudoscience at best, there is no denying that it has great historical and literary importance in Chinese culture. --Dhartung | Talk 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sometimes people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it, but deletion is not solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Essential for an encyclopedia. ChessCreator (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that both of these sub-articles should be kept because they are tightly bound to the content of the main I Ching article. This structure allows the main I Ching article to be kept more streamlined, while allowing the more interested reader to "drill down" to the meanings and alternate meanings of the individual hexagrams. I also have a strong suspicion that the original nominator and second nominator are trolls intent merely on spurring controversy. Alan Siegrist 3 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.81.104 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess that if I had found a list like this in my pre-wiki life, it would have been gold. Also see WP:BIAS. – sgeureka t•c 09:28, 4 April 2008 (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.