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 merge to [[1]]. I'm closing as merge to the article on the author. The book itself is a composite of works published in the 30s and 40s, u. It does have some current significance, but it is primarily significant as a work of its author, and can most usefully be merged into the article on him, which will eliminate the dispute over whether to use the russian or english title DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaveshchanie russkogo fashista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article only about modern reprint edition of works by Rodzayevsky, which seems to fail WP:NB. Blacklake (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book was a lot of critical articles in the Russian press, and now banned in the list of banned books of the Ministry of Justice of Russia. Therefore WP:NB meets. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the author (Konstantin Rodzaevsky) and delete. Only minor notability. --DonaldDuck (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem is that there aren't sources showing describing the banning of the book. Without that to differentiate it and emphasize its distinctiveness in that way, the page becomes a mere summary of one title out of millions, with no viable search name for an English-speaking audience. Carrite (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did redirection. Now the search is viable. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 29 September 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.