Deletion of East Asian History (journal)

Comment: I think that the case for deletion has been clearly laid out. The case for keeping, despite the production of huge walls of text, misunderstanding of WP policies, wikilawyering, and general muddying of the waters is much more shaky, although I don't envy the poor admin who'll have to wade through all that stuff. Just one final remark (although I fear that it will cause another multi-paragraph diatribe): Yes, WP determines what constitutes a |reliable source and what is or is not "selective". Only if we judge that a source is reliable and establishes |notability do we use it to base an article upon
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm prepared to give this the benefit of the doubt, it looks like there is some notability and some useable content here. At the very least the page should be userfied (per ) rather than outright deleted to enable the creator to find more sources (if what is said about sources from the 1970s and 1980s being stronger - which is likely to be true
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: This has been ed to the point of making notability difficult to discern, but I think the Columbia bibliography and China Heritage Quarterly references (footnotes 5 and 11 of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Asian_History_(journal)&oldid=1038865132 current version) are independent and in-depth enough to barely meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB||WP:GNG)