Deletion of Qing conquest theory

Comment: The OR and synthesis are clear, but an additional concern is the use of Wikipedia to promote a term no-one else is using: a Google search for this phrase throws up thousands of hits, but as near as I can tell every one of those hits comes from Wikipedia and its derivatives.  This seems to be a classic case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: WP:NEOLOGISM says, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in |reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." This is one of these cases that calls for a descriptive phrase-title, although I don't think promoting a neologism was article creator's intent; the title is in lowercase, so it seems like a terse try at a descriptive title that unfortunately looks like a neologism. The theory that this article describes is definitely attested to in multiple reliable sources, so the title just needs rejiggering, which happens at the talk page and not AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)