Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Republic of Amnesia

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Republic of Amnesia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Most of the article is based on primary sources and is just a synopsis. There appears to be only 1 decent review from NY times. But doesn't meet

WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BEFORE fail. WaPo mentions it, this year, demonstrating it has enduring coverage. Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban... we'd better have a really airtight case for deleting, and this ain't it. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban." is not a criteria for
WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it's a criteria for a project built on NOTCENSORED, which I happen to believe applies to this case based on the WaPo article I cited. Consider beefing up your BEFORE, withdrawing the nomination, or accept the residual risk of appearing to have nomination priorities congruent with a totalitarian regime. That may be totally OK with you, but I would consider having myself apparently so aligned a pretty negative thing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you tone down your aggressive tone. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets
WP:NBOOK. Numerous reviews, including in Krikus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've also added a link to the Times review already in the article, which is accessible through TWL. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LibStar (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: several reviews in serious RS. Have done some tidying up - removed the umpteen repeated links to the author, removed a duplicated ref, and fixed the curly quotes. PamD 09:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Reception section shows notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, while the article might not have shown notability, remember to check
WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: per coverage in reviews. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2023 (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.