Deletion of Han–Uyghur intermarriage

Comment: Did Salute_to_America#Aftermat|Donald Trump craft |this mess? Even if four score and seven editors tried to fix it, this is still a |soap box of a page. We are an encyclopedia, |not a random advocacy webhost
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:SOAP||WP:NOT)

Comment: This is a potential subject if suitable references could be found, but as it stands this is just an attack piece and should be deleted per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:DYNAMITE)

Comment: I'm not understanding the nomination because, at first reading, the page seems to contain lots of information about the ostensible topic.  The edit history indicates that this is a |spinoff from History of Xinjiang which is tagged as too long and so that's reasonable.  As it's an early start on a cleanup, then it would be silly and disruptive to start again so soon.  In any case, merger back into the parent would be preferable to deletion per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: per BRD. I'm not seeing where Andrew is coming from claiming this page's history makes it clear it was split off from the long Xinjiang history article -- at the time this article was created, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Xinjiang&oldid=904575697 that article contained https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Xinjiang&oldid=904575697#Intermarriages_between_Han_and_Uyghurs a single short section on this topic, corresponding basically to the lead of the present article. The present article reads a bit like a POVFORK of the other article, created at its current location to get around the scrutiny of the original article's 63 page watchers. Obviously the topic is notable, but we really shouldn't be allowing the present article to exist in its present state if the only ones who think it should be so are the article's creator and editors who are opposed to all of the |"alternatives to keeping" on principle. This looks a little like the old "deletionists telling editors who specialize in this topic area what they can and can't do with their own articles" problem seen, for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination), and Talk:Mottainai Bāsan#Requested move 7 December 2018
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)