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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Notable because historians write about it in the journal Late Imperial China (journal). Also note the claim in the article: "The use of early/mid and late Imperial China is preferred by many economic, cultural, and social historians over the standard dynastic periodization..." -- Eastmain (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The article itself may be a stub, but the subject seems pretty obviously notable - it describes a substantial and distinct period of time in China's history. Fumoses (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Late Imperial China is a standard academic term used by economic historians who consider the Early/Mid/Late categorization more useful than the dynastic periodzation Roadrunner (talk)
Comment -- WE have a general article on the History of China, which deals with this period much more fully than this article. Its length is not excessive, so that contnetn hardly needs to be forked out of it (yet). If expanded it might provide a useful article. Alternatively, it might be converted to a disambiguation page pointing to pages on the particular dynasties. No vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (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.