Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashu nationalism

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bashu nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Majority of this page is only talking about Sichuan's history and not the actual movement itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob251 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is plenty on the movement, and besides, content issues should be resolved on the talk page and through edits, not via AfD. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no in-depth information about the movement and most of the sources about the movement come from the movement's own website therefore it is not notable AAAAA143222 (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AAAAA143222, who tried to remove most of the original research, trivia, and extraneous material, but seems to have given up. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article appears to be thoroughly sourced in its current state (which is apparently after the removal of OR). Without a detailed source analysis I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion. Given the history of pro-China editors trying to unethically influence content on wikipedia, I am not comfortable deleting a page like this without a thorough source analysis proving the argument being made. That has not been done here. I suggest the nominator use the template found at WP:SIRS.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (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.