Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Historical Status of China's Tibet


 * 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 no consensus. Opinions are exactly divided, and notability, here, is a matter of editorial judgment.  Sandstein  09:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Historical Status of China's Tibet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article overbooked a book. The reader may think this is like promoting this book.Most of the reference sources are proof that the book is published.This needs to be rewritten to improve, and the list of chapters of this book is unnecessary. O1lI0 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand what you mean exactly by "This article overbooked a book". Writing in an encyclopaedia implies avoiding giving English words meanings they do not possess. --Elnon (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What is Book?

"Instrument that record, analyse, summarise, organise, debate and explain information that are illustrative, non illustrative,hard bound paper bag jacketed, non jacketed, with forward introduction table of contents, index that are intended for the enlightenment, understanding, enrichment, enhancment and education of the human brain through sensory route of vision... some times touched"


 * Can you understand Overbook after this explanation?With a simple description is that you advertise for this book.--O1lI0 (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I will use A11 if I think this page can not be improved. This is my habit .Using this delete page means I think there is room for improvement, please go to improve and then come back to explain what you have improved.Other users will see this page and decide whether to delete or keep.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an incipientWP:COATrack. Add any scraps worth keeping to one of the related articles. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, major insight, indeed into the Historical Status of China's Tibet, factual article about a book--DDupard (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you mislept "POV polemicism supporting the occupation of Tibet." Anmccaff (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutral. Article might warrant improvement, but this Chinese propaganda book definitely meets WP:NBOOK . It is cited, is reviewed, and is also considered a government position.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC) On reflection - this doesn't pass on English sources (seems like 1 review in Radio Free Asia, a mention in NYT, and around two dozen citations) or the sources in the article - I'm guessing there is Chinese or other non-English sourcing - but without these being presented, I'm modifying to Neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fails NBOOK and GNG, even if the nom can't manage to communicate in English. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep gives background on the Chinese government's approach to presenting and promoting their view on the topic. Cannot be easily incorporated into other articles. I have edited the article, mainly for neutrality. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets several criteria of WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Name two. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Criteria 1, and Criteria 2. I would even suggest it meets Criteria 3. AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see only one book review (half of criteria 1). I cannot find any source regarding the notability of this "Book of Excellence" award (criteria 2: The book has won a major literary award)--Tiger Chair (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Mere fake news in book form (what we used to call "propaganda.") But the reason for deleting is that it fails WP:WP:NBOOK; I searched and failed to find any scholarly or WP:RS reviews in English, and, as ChrisTroutman says, what I did find did not meet WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am wary of articles on books, as opposed to ones on their subject matter. History and politics books that need a WP article are likely to be few and far between.  In this case the dominant view in the west adopts the view of the British Raj that Tibet was an independent kingdom.  The Chinese view  is that it was at most semi-independent under the suzerainty of China.  The Chinese view of the subject is clearly important.  It is not WP's place (or mine) to say which view is right and which wrong.  I do not think this is "fake news", since it is explaining the official Chinese POV.   Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, my iVote was based on failure to meet WP:NBOOK and lack of the sort of WP:SIGCOV to support a article on this book. It is an article on a book; not on a policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. French historian Anne-Sophie Bentz has not been writing any review about this book. Her inclusion in the section "Reception" is therefore misleading.  She has only written a short half-sentence about the two co-authors and is providing a quote from the book introduction. The book title does not even appear in Bentz text (it is only mentioned as a note). See here section 18, note 30. I could not identify any criteria of WP:NBOOK met by this book.--Tiger Chair (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * French scholar Anne-Sophie Bentz does not review the book, that's a fact. However she makes use of it to contrast the POV of pro-Tibetan authors and that of China's official historiography. Contrary to what is claimed above, there is more than just a "short half-sentence" dedicated to the book. I have counted as many as 18 occurrences of the authors' names in the whole chapter (mostly in the notes, though) and a total of 60 lines or so of text (notes included) relating to Bentz's comparative analysis of the two viewpoints. It's not a lot but it's more than the purported "half-sentence". --Elnon (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At least we agree on the fact that Anne-Sophie Bentz does not review the book. --Tiger Chair (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As mentioned by several users, The Chinese view of the subject is important, but this is not what we are discussing here. This book does not meet any of the criteria under WP:NBOOK, I could not find any review, and this book apparently never had a significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") --Tiger Chair (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a review (in Radio Free Asia) - . It is also frequently mentioned as Chinese policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the review by Warren W. Smith, this makes half of criteria number one met: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" (WP:BOOKCRIT). I would be happy to change my opinion if a second review is found.--Tiger Chair (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The book is credited with having won a major Chinese award: the 1996 "Book of Excellence" award (so, that's one criterion met). It has been the subject of an in-depth review by American journalist Warren W. Smith (half a criterion met, as noted above). Although a second review is missing, the book has elicited comments of various length by Western scholars (John Powers, Thomas Laird, Anne Sophie Bentz, José Raimundo Novas, José Elias Esteve Molto). --Elnon (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Elnon (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * I would be happy to change my opinion if you can provide some verifiable source that this " Book of Excellence " award is indeed a major award as per WP:NBOOK criteria 2. I made an extensive search, and could find plenty of "Books of Excellence" awards as diverse as "American Society of Missiology Book of Excellence Award", "Book of Excellence Award from the National Academy of Sciences, Korea", but nothing related to China. There seems to be in China something like an " Excellent book " award, with many different categories, but here again not much is available to prove notability of this award (nothing either under Category:Chinese literary awards). For example, this provincial publishing house has won no less than 800 awards (out of 10'000 publications) including "Excellent Book" awards. If you can tell us more about the notability of this "major Chinese award" that you seem to know, and tell us in which category The Historical Status of China's Tibet received its awards, and give us some other major books that have received the same prize over the course of the years, this would help to revise my vote.--Tiger Chair (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep.major award, citation in lot of scholar articles, some where that's the main subject.Popolon (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Popolon (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * To whomever will close this page, please note that this is a case of WP:CANVASS, in particular WP:VOTESTACK.--Tiger Chair (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you related in some way or other to user Pseudois ? --Elnon (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 's post at w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Popolon is an appropriate notification, as described in Canvassing. As far as I can see it is the only notification of this discussion made by Elnon on English or French Wikipedia, and it does not amount to votestacking. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @ : to my understanding of the table at Canvassing, "Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret" is tagged as inappropriate, and partisan notification is described as votestacking; appropriate notification must comply with "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open".
 * Elnon and Popolon have a long history of constant reciprocal support on the French Wikipedia, if you read the section where the notification is placed, Elnon asked Popolon a few hours earlier that "your opinion on the renaming is missing, there are currently three opinion in favor and one against, meaning that the other party will be able to impose its POV which is as big as a mountain". In his notification regarding this deletion page, Elnon started with "I understand you!" as a reply to Popolon's comment saying that he is not reading my comments on talk pages. I wonder how someone can take an informed decision without reading the comments. Popolon was blocked for insulting me and other contributors as a result of an ANI I filed, since then Popolon has systematically opposed any opinion I have expressed. Considering this background, it was obvious for Elnon that notifying Popolon would result in another "Keep" vote, and this does correspond in my opinion to the definition of votestacking. Or is it me who don't understand this table? Anyway, this is not large-scale votestaking, I believe we can agree on that.--Tiger Chair (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just give one clear opinion and stop the chatting --DDupard (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I interrupt this topic.I asked someone to explain any improvement, but he claimed that the book was awarded and put a KEEP in front of the statement.I don't know what happened to the French WIKI, but I'm sure it might be WP: MEAT.
 * PS:Hope that I do not have to explain and let you know why to ping you because the explanation will make you very embarrassing.--O1lI0 (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is that?--DDupard (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Popolon has contributed to the French page Le Statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire, of which The Historical Status of China's Tibet is derived. Were it not for him, both pages would never have seen the light of day. I felt something would have been amiss if I had not let him know about this deletion discussion. --Elnon (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah great, at least I understand what you are writing.--DDupard (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Popolon has not contributed to the French page Le Statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire. Popolon is the creator of an article about Nyima Gyaincain (a coauthor of the book), which Popolon edited between 4th November 2015 and 12th July 2017. His contributions are mainly additions of wrong biographical information copied from an homonym user profile on the Chinese micro-blogging site Sina Weibo (see here). According to the Weibo profile, Nyima Gyaincain is a lama at the Tibetan Buddhism Institute in Lhasa born on 5th August 1980, meaning that the boy would have been 14 -15 year old when he would have published this official history book (see here). After concerns were raised by several users regarding the reliability of the information and the admissibility of the article, Elnon deleted/replaced the Nyima Gyaincain article by renaming/transforming it into a redirection towards "Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire" on 29 July 2017. Popolon did not add any content to the article about this book. Vote stacking is allowed on the French Wikipedia, so Elnon may simply have been unaware of the English Wikipedia usage when notifying Popolon. That doesn't change to the fact that it shall be taken into consideration when the discussion will be closed.--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Popolon created the French article Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire and has made a considerable number of edits to it. The English article is based on a translation of the French article. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also created the Wikidata entry and added some elements.Popolon (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Verbcatcher, but Popolon has not created the the French article Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire, he created on 4th November 2015 a biographic article article named "Nyima Gyaincain" and stopped editing it on 12th July 2017. Elnon later transformed the content from a biographic article into a book article, and renamed the article accordingly on 29 July 2017.--Tiger Chair (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep "considered as presenting the official position of the People's Republic of China on the subject" is sufficient for a presumption of notability, and sufficient references are provided. The article does need cleanup. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The book is not notable. The page does not include any meaningful information about content of the book (beyond noticing that Tibet has always been a Chinese domain), probably because such information can not be reliably sourced. Not every propaganda book is notable. For example, we do not have The Secret War Against Soviet Russia? No. But at least the author of the "Secret war" was notable. Are Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain notable? I am not sure, but page Nyima Gyaincain should be deleted as well. As written, this is pure promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes This book doesn't say the Tibet has always been China, this books claims that it's started with Mongolian ruled China, Yuan Dynasty, inside Mongolian Empire. Popolon (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the book would be more notable in China but since it talks about Tibet, the notability may have issues but it is fair for passing general notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Something strange is happening here. For example, please see last paragraph of this source. It only mentioned the title of the book and it tells about the title of the book sarcastically, as "a pile" of something. Now, here is an edit telling that the New York Times reported that the Chinese Government had highlighted its diplomatic priorities by placing copies of The Historical Status of China Tibet among other official publications at a reception following the opening of celebrations. What? Is that a spin to promote the product? My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a new addition, but the restoration of content recently deleted by . I have explained my revert on the talk page. My very best wishes has not responded on the talk page but has again deleted the paragraph. Meanwhile another editor has deleted another paragraph. That deletion is also unwarranted. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable enough for WP:NBOOK, a search on Google Scholar produces some citations, but not barely enough to warrant a separate article. The NY Times article only mentions the book in the passing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2017 (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.