Deletion of The Historical Status of China's Tibet

Comment: 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 , I could not find any review, and this book apparently never had a significant coverage as per  ("''Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Not notable enough for , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: Meets several criteria of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

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). http://books.openedition.org/iheid/946 See here section 18, note 30. I could not identify any criteria of  met by this book
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)