Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of I Ching hexagrams 33-64 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

List of I Ching hexagrams 33-64
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced foreign language list cruft Ninthlocal1985 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Not to start an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but could the nominator explain why only this and not List of I Ching hexagrams 1-32? —Quasirandom (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer, I hadn't seen it. See listed now Ninthlocal1985 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given it was prominantly listed in the lead, and that the body of the article is in English rather than a "foreign language," I seriously have to wonder whether you read the article in question before nonimating it. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. archanamiya  ·  talk  23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: I am afraid I don't really know how to properly ask a question about the suggestion to delete this article, so please bear with me. Certainly, this article is about a bunch of "foreign language" hooey and malarkey, but so is the Zodiac and astrology. What is this Leo and Taurus and Sagittarius stuff? The point is that lots of people are interested in and believe the stuff. I agree that someone should expand the article and add more authoritive citations if such exist, but deleting the article will not make the I Ching hexagrams go away. Sincerely, Alan Siegrist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.81.104 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasoning on the other AfD. I strongly suggest that the nominator combine the nominations, as the two articles are inextricably linked. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, did you just call the I Ching foreign language list cruft? You can't be serious. This list is a sub-article of I Ching and the graphics in this list are much better than the small ones at I Ching. --Pixelface (talk) 00:55, 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) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong and speedy keep This is information that it is essential for the encyclopedia to have. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that the I Ching is a highly and obviously notable topic, and descriptions of the hexagrams that make up the system are encyclopedic information validly spun out into separate lists. Speedy keep on the grounds that the nominator apparently hadn't read the article enough to notice it was part 2 of 2 lists, and that his/her initial actions as a new account have been four AfDs on highly dubious grounds. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:39, 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) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as noted in other nom an important part of Chinese culture. Next time combine such things into one nom, please. --Dhartung | Talk 01:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Essential for an encyclopedia. ChessCreator (talk) 01:54, 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.