Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader


 * 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. I'm not seeing a consensus to delete and I'm plumping for keep because there is no disagreement that an article is sitting here somewhere. To me it seems before to refer this back to the article talk page for an editorial agreement on how to handle this subject. Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Re-nominated due to malformed previous listing. I am neutral as nominator. Previous reasoning by 60.242.159.224: I wish to nominate Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader for deletion, because I think it fails the notability requirements of Wikipedia. A Google search result failed to find any results for the book, and all of the sources on the page links to Chinese webpages. The page's creator said on the talk page that the book's Google search has to be done in its Chinese name, but I don't think this is in accordance with policies on a English language Wikipedia. doom gaze  (talk)  13:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This book is the memoir of a Tsinghua University Red Guard leader, recording detail armed fighting between rival students group. The book is published in Chinese, the title of this article is a direct translation of the original name, that is why a Google search in English would show a zero result. Arilang   talk  13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ten thousand students fought for one hundred days in a campus using guns, hand grenades and other weapons. That sounds interesting, but I unfortunately do not know Chinese. Do we have an article about the event rather than about the book? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess not, as there aren't many bilingual editors who are interested in Cultural revolution.  Arilang   talk  03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is my point: the event is more notable and important than a book about event. If you make an article about the event, describe the event and refer to several sources (including this book), no one will delete it (you may even use the picture of the book). As a reader I would like to learn why exactly did they fight and what had actually happened. I do not think that creating articles about sources and lists of sources was a good idea, although an article about a really notable book would be fine. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Many events happen during CR is still a taboo in China, and the western so called "Sinologist" just have no idea what really happened then. It is not a good idea to write anything about CR, simply because there are too many Maoist jargons:List of Maoist China rhetoric and political slogans for any westerner to see through the mist. It is just too difficult, but potentially university degree thesis material. Another reason this book is more important than the event itself, writer needs a fair bit of courage to fence off the government's censorship. Since not many Chinese do have the courage, and as time past many CR Red Guards would get old and die, this part of the history will be lost forever. Arilang   talk  05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You give some reasons why you think the book is more important, but the article doesn't talk about the importance of the book. If you had sources that you could quote on why the book itself was so significant, then you might be able to write an article on the book. Cloveapple (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As expected, Arilang still have told why the book meets notability requirements. Nobody on an English Wikipedia is going to bother reading through hundreds of pages of Chinese text. And Wikipedia isn't a place to spread your noble cause.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the notability of the book has problem, we can always change the name, like Tsinghua University Red Guards factions or similar names. I really do not see the reason to delete it, it is part of the important CR history. Arilang   talk  06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: No !vote from me, but I do agree that the event is more notable than the book. An article on the actual event would be more suited towards Wikipedia. Readers don't want to know about a book written about a real-life event by reading an article about a book about an event, they want to read about the event itself. To me, this event resembles that of Battle Royale and readers may find it quite interesting, however BR is a fictional novel (which is why an article on the book exists) whilst this book is based on a real-life event (and so the standard of WP:N is not the same). However, regarding the original nom, there is nothing wrong with using Chinese references as per WP:NONENG. It is permitted to use Chinese-language sources if English-language sources are either not available or not of equal or superior quality, hence WP:RS and WP:V have been satisfactorily fulfilled as per Wikipedia's requirements. And finally, Arilang, weren't you supposed to take a short break from Wikipedia? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Benlisquare, please use my talkpage for other discussion. Arilang   talk  05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ............... --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as I agree that the event is more notable than the book.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 09:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that can be alternatively interpreted as Rename to ____, rewrite as event, right? Would you personally support a rewrite if the article turned out to be about the event? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be acceptable in this case, unless the book somehow made the New York Times Bestseller list, in which case the book would then be notable.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The book wouldn't have to be a best seller in the US to be notable. Peer reviewed academic commentary on the book would make it notable as would commentary about the book in reliable media sources. (I'm not saying the article has these now, just commenting on what it would take to make the book notable.) Cloveapple (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename/Move The actual event looks notable enough to be an article subject. Cloveapple (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * List of peer reviews:

 Arilang   talk  23:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 清华四一四串联会成立的时机选择..（北京）朗钧
 * 清华园里的百日武斗
 * 漫话沈如槐和蒯大富的文革回忆录
 * 来源：社会科学论坛	  作者：唐少杰
 * Not reading Chinese, I can't evaluate that list. (I had mentioned this kind of academic peer review above, but I've no idea if what you are listing is related to that.) If you do have sources that show the book is notable beyond the event it describes, they are not part of the current article. I can only base my judgement on the current article, which is more about the event than about the book. If you are really committed to an article on the book and can find sources for it why not work on it in your user space and see if you can create something more convincing later? But right now what you have is the beginning of an article on an event. Cloveapple (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All those links above are about peer reviews of the book, I am not sure if there is English reviews at all. However, looking at Hua-Yi distinction and it's AfD rebate, there should be some Chinese English bi-lingual editors who are interested in this topic. That said, it is perfectly Ok with me if this article is to be renamed. Arilang   talk  05:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)



Comment This book is highly regarded by Chinese historians doing research on Cultural Revolution, take Hua-Yi distinction as an example again, that topic is unknown to the western world, but a very important historical and social concept of China. Arilang   talk  14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, the book is not notable, though the event itself should have an article (or at least a mention on Tsinghua University's article). Specs112   t   c  14:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here my lack of non-english skills bites me, as I cannot properly evaluate the subject. I'm inclined to agree, however, that an article on the event should come before the article on the book, and it's a gap in our coverage that it does not. I'm happy to AGF on the sources indicated, FWIW. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The only rationale for deletion being made is that the subject is not notable simply because it yields no English search results, which is a common, understandable, and unfortunate mistake in gauging non-English subjects. —  C M B J   20:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't expect English sources. I'm just hoping for some information in English to give everyone a rough idea of whether the Chinese sources are reliable sources. Could Arilang or anyone else give us (on the article talk page or here) a very rough idea of what each of the 4 sources listed above are. For example is a source a newspaper's website, an academic journal, a bookstore, a blog? Is it a book review or something else?Cloveapple (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These two look good  - frankie (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep actually. I'm also happy to assume good faith on the sources. As pointed above, the subject of the book seems very notable, could be included at least at the university - frankie (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw this on the AfD log and even though I don't have the time to become involved in the debate (at least until I finish marking these papers), I can offer assistance briefly on the sources.
 * From a quick skim:
 * 清华四一四串联会成立的时机选择..（北京）朗钧: This source comes from a monthly publication known as 北京之春, Beijing Spring, named in reference to the period of loosening in the 1970s. According to their about page, they are based in New York and their purpose is to advance human rights and democracy in China. There is version in (good) English here (the PDF and the HTML below it are identical, the former in traditional characters and the latter in simplified characters)
 * 清华园里的百日武斗: This is a link to a site called "China Review", associated with the Unirule Economics Research Institute, however, scrolling to the bottom one sees "本文原载：豆瓣网", which indicates that the article was originally published in the Douban website, which it is my understanding is a community website.
 * 漫话沈如槐和蒯大富的文革回忆录: This is a Party site. The "theory" / "理论" is Marxist theory, and the review has a distinct negative bias; at certain points it seems to be mocking the book and its authors with varying degrees of overtness.
 * 来源：社会科学论坛	  作者：唐少杰: This is a dead link (The page says: "The page you attempted to visit does not exist"). However ifeng is a mainstream and reliable source. It is not state run and reports on issues state television normally overlooks.
 * Intelligent  sium  00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another good link from ifeng:“文革”群众权力争逐：签订和解协议立即被撕毁 社会科学论坛	  作者：唐少杰

On Chinese wiki:清华大学百日大武斗.

 Arilang   talk  03:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/Rename. It would be wrong to delete this simply because the book doesn't have a big profile at the moment. It would be much better to rename the article to reflect the event(s) that the book describes. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2011 (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.