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 delete. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is unproven. Is a horse in a semi-fictional historical epic really deserving of its own article? Verifiability is dubious. I do not see relevant hits in Google Scholar for "Hex Mark". Clearly a non-RS Wiki about a computer game is no use as a reference yet this is where the article has been cut and pasted pretty much verbatim. I did try to redirect this a couple of times but the author clearly objects and now I am not even sure the title is right. Is the horse called "Dilu", "Dílú mǎ" or "Hex Mark"? Hex Mark is used throughout the article. If the article name is wrong we don't even need a redirect. I now think we should just delete this mess. DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability given. No outside sourcing. Google provides no Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.