Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchu studies (2nd nomination)


 * 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. If anyone really thinks it should be merged, that's independent of AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Manchu studies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a one-sentence sub-stub which has been tagged for lack of references for eight months and nobody's bothered to find any sources. It was brought to AfD by at which point I noticed it and tried to save everybody some time by WP:A7-ing it. But, based on the number of complaints that people have left on my talk page, I guess folks just want to spend the next week arguing about this, so I've restored it and brought it back here. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is no longer the one-sentence sub-stub I originally took objection to, and people have found some sources, so striking that. I'm neutral on whether the newly found sources are sufficient.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete There are papers in Manchu studies, but we need an article that says something more about it than that people do this sort of research. At the moment we're stuck at a WP:DICTDEF. Mangoe (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC) struck per expansion Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per my original nom statement. Sorry we have to waste seven days on this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Change to merge as editors have offered reasonable target articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The topic is clearly notable, so deletion would make sense only as a WP:REDLINK incentive for people to write an article about it. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to either Sinology or Mongolian studies (deliberately avoiding an opinion on exactly which, because I can see a can of worms there). There would appear to be enough information to merge to one or the other of those places - the latter is the shorter article, if that's any help - but seemingly not enough for a standalone article itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the article has been expanded. One of the sources used is the "Manchu studies" entry in the BRE (the big Russian print encyclopedia), and there are plenty of sources around, so questions of standalone notability are moot. Neither of the two proposed merge targets are remotely suitable (and I agree that there's a can of worms if we decided to go that way). – Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Manchu language or similar. There's not enough here to justify a stand alone article, and it's hard to see how there possibly can be. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination complains that "nobody's bothered to find any sources". I take a look and immediately find a Comprehensive Bibliography of Manchu Studies] which is over 200 pages long.  How hard was that?  Andrew D. (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew above. In additions 4 current journals are devoted to the subject: Timmyshin (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as article has been expanded and per Andrew D. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a legit area of study. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2018 (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.