Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainland power


 * 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 of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mainland power
This page seems to be very bad in its wording. It seems to be extremely biased, and it does not explain why "mainland power" is at all importannt, or why it should have a wikipedia page. Marduuk 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC) What the?
 * Delete non-notable organization, unverifiable, likely hoax ("Great Stalin" and all that rubbish). The article is the only google hit for "mainland power" + "ratt".  Postdlf 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax. Postdlf 14:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and possible hoax -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense. The only reference in the article was deleted as crap two weeks ago. .  Kuru   talk  04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, patent nonsense, hoax. --Ter e nce Ong 14:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete

Evidently everyone here needs to research more thoroughly the resurgence of Chinese Nationalism abroad, as this article discusses. Simply because none of you have any knowledge whatsoever in the aformentioned fields does not mean you have the right to delete knowledge based upon your ignorant conclusion and lack of contextual understanding.

I do not know how else to add a reply so this will do. —This unsigned comment was added by Gongocongo (talk • contribs).
 * So give us some sources in which we can research "Mainland power", verify that it actually exists. The ball's in your court.  Postdlf 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_nationalism
 * http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2393/is_4_163/ai_78729185
 * http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/08/16/2003198998
 * http://big5.china.com.cn/english/2006/Feb/159363.htm

Evidently I doubt the specific organistation/"revolutionary" movement would be qouted anywhere, as a lot of it is fictional, I don't doubt but their beliefs are clearly noted in my article.

I would encourage other members to add to the article, instead of merely deleting it.
 * None of the sources you listed are actually about the group called "Mainland power" as described in the article, or even suggest that it exists. Please don't waste our time.  Postdlf 14:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a second. You just said the specific organization is fictional.  Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, not on fiction.  Without some verification that this organization exists, it's just a rumor, or something made up.  Delete.  -- E lkman - (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For reasons above. And may I also suggest you spend a few days in a charm school? Marcus22 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax, or NN... it's one or the other - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 01:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fictional?

I never said anywhere it is fictional...

Evidently, if you can't even read my words well...

The group does exist, some facts are ... well yes obviously, but the groups premise, beliefs and opinions are all clearly there.

Please learn to read my words, not misqoute them.
 * You said: Evidently I doubt the specific organistation/"revolutionary" movement would be qouted anywhere, as a lot of it is fictional... If it doesn't refer to the specific organization/revolutionary movement (i.e. Mainland power), then what does it refer to?  And when you say, "some facts are... well yes obviously," I don't even know what you're trying to say.  Some facts are completely factual?  Some facts are embellished?  Some facts are completely made up?  Don't insult me by saying I don't know how to read your words, when you're the one who's having trouble writing with clarity.  And you still haven't given us any proof about this specific group other than your insistence that this exists. -- E lkman - (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete please read WP:V ---J.Smith 22:53, 24 March 2006 (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.