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 all. Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China, mentioned as a special case for potential retention after improvement, has not been edited since the AfD began.  Sandstein  17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1900 National Upheaval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

These book articles were created by User:Arilang1234 who is now indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. I'm nominating the following books for deletion because they lack notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (books), and they lack third party notability according to Google

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

The final seventy years of Qing Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The withering Empire: Final ten years of Qing Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Xinyang Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution Records: The Memoir of a Red Guards Leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to Notability (books), these books aren't subject to multiple significant coverage that describe the books themselves rather than the events they tell. For example, the page on 1900 National Upheaval tells the events of the Boxer Rebellion rather than the book's reception and writing etc. As such these books should not exist as independent articles, but should be used sources on the pages of the events they describe. The user has previously created similar articles such as Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan and 1901: The shadow of an Empire, which were deleted for notability reasons, as the authors wrote exclusively in Chinese, and even then their notability in Chinese is dubious. As such, I think these articles should be deleted or redirected to the articles on their subject--LucasGeorge (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as per nom. Certainly, if the books are useful as reliable sources, they could be used as such in the relevant articles - but the notability isn't there for articles about the books themselves. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I did a pretty thorough search for sources on these books and even in Chinese I'm not seeing much discussion of them. The only one that might be salvigable is Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China. I found two reviews of the book from editorial sources: here and here but they're not great. Pol430 talk to me 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, unless Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China can be saved with the refs provided above - then delete all but that one. I agree with the nom's reasoning that, while these books cover notable events, they are not notable themselves. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (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.