Jianghuai people: And I did not see a direct introduction about Jianghuai People on Google Scholar , Google Books , and CNKI . The source given in the English article, the title seems to have little to do with Jianghuai People.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 04:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and China .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not an encyclopaedic topic.  This is kinda like if we had an article Yorkshiremen or Manitoban or Adelaidean that was positioning residents of those geographical areas as separate ethnic groups (all three of the above are redirects).  Whoever said "splicing together unrelated information" nailed it.  There's no sources discussing "江淮人" as an ethnic group.  It's extra weird because it feels like some irredentist Jianghuai local pushing for the recognition of their natal area's people as some distinct and separable subset of Han Chinese , right?  But the citations to Chinese sources are so bungled I can't believe anyone with a familiarity with the language could have done this.  Redirect to Jiangnan or delete .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jianghuai is the area north of the Yangtze River in Jiangsu Province and does not belong to Jiangnan.  Redirecting is inappropriate.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 01:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As someone who edited similar pages in past IP adresses, strong disagree, nowhere in the page are the Jianghuai people stated as an "ethnic group", but as a regional subgroup of Han people, like the Sichuanese or Wuyue, speaking Jianghuai chinese and sharing some cultural aspects and history by simply being in the same region of China, so saying otherwise is disingenuous as this is not what the page says.  Just because it has a problem of sources here for now, doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a page.  It was good enough for Wikipedia in Mandarin so maybe we're missing something, nothing says there aren't any.  My familiarity with such subjects indicate to me this is a quite recent and currently fringe phenomenon of national genesis, pioneered by a cultural theorist and historian named Liu Zhongjing, who had a master in history studies at Wuhan University.  He is quite the active figure in chinese opposition spaces with his philosophy of auntology.  Perhaps there are other figures who talked about this within this philosophy?  Perhaps it could be reworked as a hub for siocultural particularities, culture specific to this region?  Just food for thought -- 142.170.60.67 ( talk ) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] However, no source can be found that fully introduces the concept of Jianghuai people, and Liu Zhongjing does not seem to have invented the concept of JACs, and his own teachings are marginal.  Wikipedia should not create its own concept.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .   There seems to be some merit to the idea that few if any sources treat "Jianghuai people" as a separate "ethnic group" compared to the clearly adequate coverage of Lower Yangtze Mandarin as a separate topolect, but the suggestion that Wikipedia shouldn't or doesn't, have articles on Han Chinese subgroups is just wrong.   As many of the sources are in Chinese I don't feel confident balancing the different considerations myself, but wanted to clear up what seemed to be confusion above.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  While I'm open to the argument put forward in the nomination, I think this subject and article could use more discussion to arrive at a consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per synthesis .  It seems to be discussed in paper sources, but the overall picture is one of synthesizing random sources into an essay.  I tried to add links, and had little success.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect