Deletion of Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

Comment: The romanization of the word is no more an issue than thousands and thousands of other Chinese words, and no more noteworthy. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or merge to already broader page. This is sufficiently sourced, but it is not really an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Rather, conflicting/shifting romanizations of Chinese names/terms more generally is the topic, including to what extent they're being assimilated and accepted by scholarly writers and the general public.  E.g., Beijing has almost completely replaced Peking except in the context of certain food items (Peking duck), while the vast majority of published material on Mao Tse-tung, Lao Tzu, the Tao Te Ching, and other such matters (in English) still use those spellings, despite the preference of some for somewhat more phonetically accurate renderings like Mao Zedong, Laozi. and Daodejing.  Indeed, the moving of our own articles toward the latter types of names is controversial and should probably be undone, because the results fail the  policy for most readers.  Anyway, this has nothing to do with ''Tao/Dao'' in particular; it's just one example.  The tidbit that at least one scholar is trying to draw a distinction between "real" Chinese Daoism and heavily Westernized "Taoism" is faintly interesting, but is insufficient to establish the ''Tao/Dao'' spelling divergence as a distinct encyclopedic topic from the broader class of such Chinese romanization matters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:RECOGNIZABLE)