The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, a three-way split. -Splashtalk 02:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete: already glossed at Chinese classic texts, with no less information than on its current separate page. --Dpr 09:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Seems like a reasonable redirect if it's not expanded. —Cryptic(talk) 13:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
keep I've changed it into a basic stub. It should be okay. Mozzerati 22:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.