Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xidan

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. DS (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Xidan

Xidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No sources proving existance, does not assert notability, which if sources article does not establish a claim of, no referenced with reliable sources or any sources, obscure chinese shopping center, no external links either Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Geographical features are notable, however those would be cities, towns, mountains, rivers, lakes, districts (such as gov't recognized historic districts and geographically demarcated electoral districts), neighborhoods (with neighborhood councils), shopping areas are not notable on their own. If it were so significant there would be sources. I looked for some and found none. Chinese sources count! Show them off, provide a link, we can get them translated even by machine to get a gist of it and determine if it is reliable, do you have Chinese language newspapers or magazine articles or the Xidan website? A travel guide? anything? It wasis entirely valid, since any article without any sources can be nominated, whether you like or agree with it or not, and this was completely in good faith, i looked for sources and found none. have a good day.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Have you, Chuletadechancho, even bothered to google up the name in Chinese? There are many references to this place! I am considering this a bad-faith nom. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Comment- Author's reasons for deletion is completely invalid (and borderline malicious), for the author only (intentionally or not) conducted a search using strictly English terms. The place's existence is verified by MANY reliable Chinese-language contents. The place is also introduced by the Beijing Olympics officials as a famous commercial area within the city of Beijing. This article also attests to the area's existence and notabilities. Those aforementioned article, in addition to many Chinese-language contents. verifies the place's existence and notability beyond any reasonable doubt, and also verifies the nominator for deletion has not conducted a slightly serious search for verification, and has nominated this article for deletion in bad faith and with absolute malice. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Comment, I would to point out that multiple hotels exist in the area. That would attest to the area's notability as a place. Also, as for Chuletadechancho's claims that a place has to be demarcated politically to be notable, Ahwatukee is officially a part of Phoenix, indistinguishable from other parts of the City of Phoenix, but yet, it has its own article. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  That article refutes your statements as it says that it is one of 15 of the "urban villages" that make up albuquerque and the map seems to show that there is a very clear demarcation, this just goes to prove my point, one that was simply an example.Chuletadechancho (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Those "Urban Villages" are nothing more than signs on the boundary lines here in Phoenix. There are no significant political activities within these villages. There are advisory groups...Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertation of notability. I can think of many districts that have supermarkets and shopping centers and even a few that *GASP* allow cars to drive on the streets! Themfromspace (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure definitely exists, but isn't really notable. I'll have to think. Change to Delete as non-notable. Erik the Red 2 (AVE•CAESAR) 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Numerous travel sites and government sites describe this as one of the four largest commercial districts in Beijing, the 12th largest city in the world and the second largest in China. The aforementioned links [1] [2] are sufficient proof that it exists and has a reasonable level of notability. It's a notable enough district to have an article in the Chinese Wikipedia: [3]. It's not surprising that sources don't come easy for this; most of them are probably in Chinese. It's easier to find articles if you search for "Xidan Commercial Street." Here are a few more I found (that weren't hotel brokerage sites): Xidan shopping, Official Chinese government page (which uses the word "famous"), Another Olympic-associated one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Government pages and olympic pages (created by the government and its olympic body in that country) are not independent of the subject in this case which is a government created district. These do nothing to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I think we're getting a little hung up on sources here. If we can agree that it's one of the largest commercial districts in the capital city of the most populous country in the world, do we really need to quibble about whether it's notable? As has been mentioned before, it's inevitably going to be harder to find English sources. In the meantime, numerous other non-government sources have been added to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No sorry we're not going to change the rules just because you can't prove notability. You've all but admitted that you can't find appropriate sources to back up notability, and since those indicating delete have been asked many times, why don't you reconsider changing your position? I've pointed out below I don't require English sources, but if chinese ones are provided they're going to need to be verified to make sure they satisfy the requirements. None of the English sources I've seen thus far remotely satisfy the guideline even the non-government ones, the links provided thus far are either self-serving or trivial. Unless I've missed one.--Crossmr (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Government websites, while having a degree of promoting business, also serve to provide official recognition of the area. (They refer to it as "Xidan Commerical District") I think that is notable enough. _dk (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Again existence != notability. Every government with a website probably has a list of the various subdivision, regions, etc within a city. These are not inherently notable. Notability exists for a reason because the community has decided that we only want to include articles on subjects that Joe Q Public has a reasonable chance of being interested in. if no one is writing about it, they've decided that its not good enough for inclusion.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete existence != notability. Something has to be shown to show notability outside of standard travel guide boiler plate. The mytravel link is trivial coverage and doesn't establish notability. The beijing olympics link, is not really independent of the source as is required by notability guidelines. You should show a travel guide or something else devoting significant coverage to the subject (for example a travel show that does a 10 minute spot on it or something) in order to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur! the mytravel ref is trivial and the olympics site is insufficient at best, the chinese wikipedia article is not a source, it also doesn't provide any sources and the one external link is dead and redirects to some unrelated website. but one mention in an olympics website is not enough to establish notability, we need more. notability equals multiple non trivial coverage.Chuletadechancho (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete(with EC). Simple existence isn't enough for inclusion. I see no sources which assert a special notability in the article; there's been ample time to ramp up an AN/I thread about this, which means ample time to expand and save the article. that hasn't been done, leading me to believe that most of the g-hits represent non-notable results, instead of statistics on the commerce, history, and social importance of the area. As such, it's another outdoor market, one of thousands in China and thousand on thousands world wide, not all of which have Wikipedia entries, nor deserve them. Delete as non-notable. ThuranX (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that existence != notability; however, an official Beijing government site declared that it's one of the most famous traditional commercial areas in Beijing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is a source not independent of the subject. Which makes it useless in determining notability.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • This. ThuranX (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• comment it was promising but then i noticed that it is an almost identical copy and paste version of the olympics website article. but keep up the good work, if it is the most famous surely you'll be able to find more than 1 repeated or two if you believe they are different reliable sources for it. i doubt it though.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to invite all users who voted to delete to return to the page, and take a look at the changes that has since been made. We now have 16-18 sources proving that this area exists, and that it is notable. Not counting government websites, there are at least three independent traveling websites that attests to this area's notability. I hope it would change your mind. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • reply I have done so, and while it's clear an admirable and fully good faith effort to improve has occurred, and you should be complimented for your dedication and efforts, and I do so compliment you here, most of those sources, as Crossmr points out above, many of those sites are commercial sites for China, official Chinese gov't media sites, and so on. I really don't see much there that isn't sourced to like, foriegn journalists describing it, or a book on Beijing's history. ThuranX (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, your points (as stated) should also take into consideration the context and location of the area in question. Xidan is not in America or Europe, it is in China, and that's why those sources are from commercial sites in China! It's the same thing for the article on Ahwatukee. Few, if any, foreign press have covered the area (save for a crime story in the past, which just happens to occur in Ahwatukee). Most of its mentions come from Phoenix newspapers, in addition to mentions by local businesses. Does it mean we should delete Ahwatukee as well? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Ahwatukee, it seems to be far more of a gazetteer entry that representing any particular notability to the town, esp. in light of all the dead link citations. I'd certainly examine an AfD if nominated; I'm not going to do so myself. But you missed my point, which was predictable; the citations for Xidan are little better than Chinese propaganda puff pieces "buy our goods by visiting beautiful Xidan shopping district." who cares? A place to buy stuff isn't notable. Every instance of commerce worldwide isn't independently notable, and the sources here are little better than ad-spam. Your defense seems to be ' that's how Chinese culture is so you can't judge the sources', and 'so what if they're commercial sites from china, the place is in china'. we don't like commercial sources from America for American articles either. ThuranX (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I do read and speak Chinese but some of you are contradicting your own votes. It is not an alley, it is a district. There are a multitude of sources independent of the topic. There are assertions it's the most popular shopping district in Beijing, related to the Olympics, the subject of archeological research, etc. AfD is not the place to suggest an article needs more sourcing. There are tags for this sort of thing. Please review WP:DP again and remember that if a cursory search returns the likelyhood of notability it's probably not suitable for deletion. AoT's earlier disagreeability is no reason to disregard policy. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Those tags are to be used ONLY after the article satisfies the basic guidelines for inclusion, which this has not.--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Ohnoitsjamie. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. We wouldn't dream of deleting SoHo... let's not exacerbate the encyclopedia's English-centric systemic bias. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Soho has gotten a lot of press. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unless someone can demonstrate notable coverage in a source independent of the subject, there is no reason for this to be here. There is no bias. I'm willing to accept any source in any language as long as it satisfies policy and guideline (and independent editors can verify that it says what is claimed).--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

An overwhelming number of sources have been found, including on Google News and Google Books; see below. Dismissing these sources because "someone somewhere" told you that Xidan is also a Chinese name, and you can't confirm because you can't read Chinese, is bias. TotientDragooned (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • So notability (which is different from verifiability) doesn't matter? Themfromspace (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Precisely. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • My cats exist. Main articles, interactions between entities articles, effects on the economics and material resources of my household, and so on to follow. Wikipedia fails. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Those are all legitimate subjects for articles, because they all exist. I don't see what you're getting at here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Except the community has long decided and there is a ton of precedent that exists in other AfDs, guidelines, etc that those are not acceptable subjects for articles.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
            • On Wikipedia, we do not make blanket decisions beforehand that then apply across the board. Rather, we consider each case separately, judging it on its own merits without regard to what we might have typically done in the past. Every new case is an opportunity to revisit and rediscuss every relevant issue. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Didn't you just make a blanket generalization that if it exists its notable? Sorry, but consensus and precedent in decisions come from somewhere. Its done everyday just like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
                • No, I made a blanket generalization that if it exists it's a worthy subject for an article. I didn't say anything about so-called "notability", because it's irrelevant. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Please refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MuZemike (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
            • No one's disrupting anything. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not seeing it notable enough for inclusion. Delete it. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Motion for restarting of AfD- I believe questionable actions on the initiator's behalf have poisoned the well, as well as the jury, the extent of which could render this as an equivalent to a kangaroo court proceeding. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  We don't do that here. The AfDs run their course, unless there is evidence of massive disruption due to sock puppets or the like. Your constant assumptions of bad faith and name calling don't really do anything to endear you here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. First, there are, as of now, unofficial notability guidelines we can refer to when this kind of article gets nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) and Wikipedia:Notability (geography) listed some points for consideration, such as: "a name that is either confirmed by the government of the place or by a reliable secondary source," As provided by the eBeijing website and others, the government has indeed recognized the place, also noting that the government-owned Beijing Subway has a "Xidan Station" that serves the area. I can't understand why the government's own website and its press would be considered insufficient to establish notability, unless the mentality behind that is the distrust of anything China.... I also note relevant discussions in WP:NTRAN and WP:STREET, for reference. _dk (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I also note that asking for "independent" Chinese sources is ridiculous, since we all know that nothing is really independent in China, least of all the press. Any mainland Chinese source brought onto the table is going to be labelled as "non-notable promotional material" by the opposing side...._dk (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell the only wide (informal) concensus is that "major" geographical locations are notable (a bit of circular meaning here, just shifts the focus from notable to "major"), not any point on earth that holds a name, official or not. Equendil Talk 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Except this isn't a geographic area. This is a municipal district as far as I can tell and has nothing to do with geography so I can't see how that logic works. Beijing is a reasonably popular tourist destination in china. If this was a notable district, tourist magazines/shows/etc would have more than a cursory blurb about it. There could be potentially tons of reliable sources if this was truly notable.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• So according to you, human geography (population geography, urban geography) has nothing to do with geography? _dk (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Urban Geography seems to be based entirely off a single publication named that. As for human geography and population geography they don't seem remotely related to the unaccepted notability guideline you first linked to.--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll tell my university to cancel their 300-level geography courses because urban geography isn't a field of study! Someone on Wikipedia seems to believe that, and so it must be true! </sarcasm> _dk (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• For fuck sake. First the AfD discussion was closed by a non admin as soon as it was up, then comments were moved around, now they're "moved to the talk page" (*this* is the relevant talk page, duh). ENOUGH. Below is what was removed, leave it alone. Equendil Talk 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I only refactored the page (without deletion) to make some semblance of the comments the first two were involved in. They had comments strewn all over the page at each other with multiple top level comments making it a pain to read.--Crossmr (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I know, indenting etc is ok, moving comments to a different section should be avoided though (such as the move to the "notes" section below). I'm just getting annoyed at the proceeding here, I'll get over it. Equendil Talk 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Why not try google news? It's where the bookstore is, in case anyone don't know. Yaan (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  I see Xi Dan name drops, I don't see any significant coverage of the area itself. I feel like someone has gone through these and found them to either all be trivial mentions or not independent of the subject, unless we missed one.--Crossmr (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Then is this independent enough to convince you that the place is "famous"? Yaan (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You've probably established the notability of the Xidan Democracy Wall. As for as establishing notability of Xidan, do you really see this as significant coverage of xidan? Its used as a very light backdrop to a story about what happened surrounding the wall. Its an extremely tenuous tie. Even if we accept it as significant coverage, where is the second source? Notability requires multiple (at least 2) sources of significant coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• As for having a foreign source covering this place, I found just that, on a travel book published by The Discovery Channel. In its travel guides on Beijing, there is a section on Xidan on Page 222. The book is available in many bookstores within the US (Barnes & Noble, along with Borders, should carry it. I found that book at a Borders Store). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A normal entry with hundreds or thousands of other places in a travel guide isn't notable. We've talked about travel guide entries before as many of those were attempted to be used earlier. Is the entry unusually large? or something else that makes the coverage of xidan stand out in this book?--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The entry is one section within a sub section (as is the structure of the book). Having one section dedicated to this area would lend it notability. Do you seriously expect a book to introduce a relatively nonnotable area with such expansive coverage? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a standard entry for any place. Yes, travel guides often include tons of areas that may be interesting to a tourist, but not necessarily notable to the general public.--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Once I saw the entry, there is no question that Xidan should NOT even be considered to be on this list. Just the past month alone, there are over 2,500 News entries from Google. I have never lived in Beijing and I have heard of it. It's almost like Compton (no, Xidan is NOT a bad neighborhood, I am just saying like Compton, it's very well known) in LA & Brooklyn in NY. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  The google news hits are misleading. Someone somewhere talked about how this word in chinese is also a name. So anyone in the news who has this name would show up on this search. Frankly that count can't be used as anything to establish anything.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  Any combination of two or more characters can be a Chinese name, this is how Chinese names work. Having said that, "Xidan" (with characters 西單) is very rarely used as a person's name and so should not influence the google news search in any misleading way. I can assure you, and you can find someone else to verify, that almost all of those 2500 news entries are talking about the area or a building within it. _dk (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well, as I said someone perhaps on AN/I when it was brought up there had already filtered the google results on this name for stuff just about the area and found nothing of value. If you think you have some sources, bring them here and have an independent editor who can read chinese attest to the content.--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  Response - Google Analysis I can't read Chinese fluently, but I've got enough to summarize the first page of Google News (keyword 西单), as of 1100 GMT today. Aside from the false positives, they all refer to the Beijing shopping district or the associated company. One of them is an article, from a major newspaper hundreds of miles away, about the shopping centre. It would be unusual to have this 'Xidan' as a person's name, unless you were born in the shopping centre or something. Matt's talk 10:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  News report about conference at the Xidan bookstore (this is a national website, but they assume readers will understand a reference to Xidan)

  Probably a false positive, see below

  Puff piece from stockbroker's on the Xidan Shopping Centre Company

  Article saying that the Xidan shopping district is a great place to fall in love, from Shanghai's Xinmin Evening News

  Two false results, the 'Xi' is from the end of one phrase and the 'dan' from the start of the next

  News report on the Beijing Xidan Shopping Centre Company shareholder's meeting

  News report on a controversial investment by the Xidan Shopping Centre Co.

  Puff piece on jewellery available in the shopping centre

  Report on current traffic trends from Beijing Youth Daily mentions Xidan as one of three major shopping/entertainment districts with high traffic flows.

• Comment There are also about 800 hits on Google News Archives using the keyword "Xidan". These are all independent sources, and many of them are in English and thus easily verifiable. I hope this find proves beyond any reasonable doubt of Xidan's notability. I'm surprised no one brought this up before. _dk (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  They were brought up, and as I pointed about above xidan is also a chinese name for a person which taints any google results. If you think there are reliable sources there in the xidan area which give it significant coverage feel free to bring some to the AfD or article. Regardless of which google hits hasn't been used to establish notability in years on wikipedia. So simply linking to a search claiming 'it's there' won't quite cut it. AoT has been looking for days for something and hasn't been able to come up with anything that isn't a standard travel guide/non-independent source. Don't you think if something were just a google search away, he would have brought it here already?--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, seeing as you have no knowledge of Chinese, you are relying on "someone somewhere" to back your claim of Xidan also being a Chinese name. And from what you say, you are depending on "someone perhaps on AN/I" to filter the google search and just believe whatever he claims without verifying them for yourself. I don't think you have the in-depth knowledge of the subject, nor are you willing to do the simplest research, to have a say in this deletion debate. Why does "someone somewhere"'s claim hold more ground than what we are saying here? Anyways, sources say more than rhetoric in Wikipedia, so here we go:

    • Xidan Shopping Area Changing from 'Street' to 'Loop'., SinoCast China Business Daily News, 2002
    • Fast Food Chains Eye on Xidan Commercial Center to Open Outlets., SinoCast China Business Daily News, 2005
    • Bus Bombing Fails to Daunt Shopping Day In Beijing, New York Times, 1997
    • Finding the Peking Beyond the Tour Bus, New York Times, 1983

    These are just from the first 10 pages, and they happen to go in-depth about Xidan. Of the ones that only mentioned Xidan in passing, the mentions are preceded by qualifiers like "a busy commercial district", "the busiest commercial area in Beijing", "bustling", "a district west of Tiananmen Square popular with younger shoppers", and "one of where most of the bloodshed took place in the Tiananmen Massacre". Hmm. Really though, from the Beijing people's point of view, Xidan doesn't need sources to proof it is notable, it is already a part of their lives....It's one of those things that the Chinese won't write about because they all know about it, and foreigners won't talk about because they don't really care enough to write about it. (The same mentality, I suspect, is happening here in Wikipedia.) _dk (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting non admin closure

Reverting non admin closure:

The result was Non-Admin Close by User:Arbiteroftruth, for there are many references about Xidan's existence as a place within the City of Beijing, and major geographical/topographical features within a city (especially when it is close to the administrative centers of China) are inherently important. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)}}

• It was not done properly (AfD notice still in the article).
• This was not in accordance with WP:NAC or WP:DPR#NAC. WP:SNOW *could* be invoked, however, the article is not so much about a geographical place as the name of a shopping district (whether it is major or not can be discussed here). Equendil Talk 22:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note Arbiteroftruth (AoT) has left the following message on my talk page,

  "You claimed to have conducted a search, but you have not. Had you searched seriously, you would have found an article on the Beijing Olympics page describing the place. That establishes Xidan's existence, as well as its notability.
  Your actions has demonstrated that you have, maliciously, made a bad faith nomination on a perfectly fine page. This is your warning. Do not do this again. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)"[4]

  I googled "西单" and "Xidan" and also used Google Scholar. I will also make a request for sources at the reference desk. If there are Chinese language sources, many as you say, bring them foward here, they are valid and should be considered. The Olympics page establishes verifiability, however is does not establish notability, furthermore it is poorly written stating among other things that Xidan is "congested of underground restaurants" The myTravel guide is a one paragraph user generated piece of original research.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have brought them forward, and it is not my fault that you chose to purposely ignore them. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You claimed to have googled for both Xidan and its corresponding Chinese terms, and yet, you have missed, in total, many mall articles about the area, as well as two articles from Baidu and Hoodong on the Chinese side. On the Beijing Olympics article, it also establishes notability because it introduces the major places within that city. Do you seriously think it would introduce a backalley? Also your accusations of it being poorly written is totally irrelevent, as it is still legible and it comes from the Beijing Olympics committee, which means it is an empirical source. This is just an extension of your bad-faith nomination of this page. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I googled and google scholared those two terms, and found nothing, anyone else could do the same and find that's what i found. What have a i missed on Baidu and Hoodong? If you found something come forward with a link to it so that we can see it. I have no idea what you mean by back alley. Speaking of poor writing "irrelevent" is spelled irrelevant, and the irrelevance is that something that is poorly written is poorly edited and not an ideal source. It is one source. For something to be notable it should have multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources. The Beijing Olympics committee website is an empirical source which makes it by definition not very reliable, since it is based on experience not real study. There is no bad faith here.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I should not be responsible for your purposeful ignoring of links and twisting of information. Xidan's page at the Beijing Olympics Official Website came up as the fifth item on any Google search. I have searched for it five times, and it came back as the fifth item five times. As for the Beijing's site being poorly written, it is not an issue, as I have said. There might be some things that did not go through correctly because of language barriers, but that does not mean it is unreliable. The undeniable fact still remains that that page belongs to the Beijing Olympics Committee! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AoT, you have been warned on WP:ANI to remain civil. That doesn't just apply there, that applies everywhere. And what do you mean, the page belongs to the Olympic Committee? No Wikipedia page belongs to any one person or group. Corvus cornix_talk 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about the Wikipedia page. I know the rules about no ownership as well as you do. I meant the page we cited. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In AoT's defense it seems like s/he is talking about the Beijing Olympic Committee website.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks. I got confused.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I wasn'tam not sure either taking into account AoT's ridiculous banter, but in this one instance we're wrong. haha.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of reliable source material in Google Books. For goodness sakes, even the Google Book full view only has 262 hits, representing a possible 262 sources of easily accessible material for Wikipedia. That is a lot more full view hits than I normally see, even for some public domain topics such as those from before 1923. The topic meets WP:N. Also, it doesn't seem too POV to delete as as a POV Fork. The use of websites and blogs as source material is unfortunate, but those can be switched out over time with the available and easily accessible source material noted above. Renamin to Xidan (commercial district) might be appropriate so us Westerners can more immediately understand the topic of the article. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, Internet available publications have been writing about Xidan since at least 1949, see Google book search 1900-1960. It seems likely that there should be enought source material published over the past 58 years to have a Wikipedia article on Xidan. -- Suntag ☼ 17:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of sources that I can find, that are more than passing references. And that's just in English. Arakunem^Talk 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Point 5 out then.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per CdC's original reasoning: "Geographical features are notable [...] such as gov't recognized historic districts". I'll consider the Beijing Government website as government recognition of the district. Travel guides are published secondary sources and thus bestow notability on the places discussed, too. Huon (talk) 23:17, 19 September 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.