Talk:Liberation of Taiwan

"Social-media radicalism" section
It seems there's some disagreement about whether to include this material in the article, so I'm starting a discussion in the hope of stopping an edit war. It's clear this material is WP:FRINGE and not what the vast majority of people using the phrase "liberation of Taiwan" mean. Should it be included in the article despite this? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not notable enough for the article, its just a very small number of people on social media being extremists. The sources are terrible too, because there aren't any better ones for something this unnotable. Corinal (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability
please demonstrate reliability. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See the article, please demonstrate lack of reliability. Corinal (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol sorry, I meant WP:NOTABILITY. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The policy was officially used as seen in the first source, and the change in policy is demonstrated by source two. Corinal (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Official use has nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY, we need feature coverage in independent WP:RS Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The phrase 解放台湾 ("liberate Taiwan") is commonly used to refer to some version of the concept we describe in the article Chinese unification. At first glance, the title makes this article look like a WP:POVFORK. I guess the question is whether the term itself is notable separately from the concept. I would guess not, but I'm open to sources proving otherwise. I think those would need to be sources about the term itself, not the general concept of cross-Strait unification. If we can't find enough sources, then I would suggest merging. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a merger may be good, but as it was used as an official term for a policy, there should be sufficient sources to show notability Corinal (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources would actually need to be presented, we can't just speculate about their existence. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed but we should not rush to delete stubs simply because they are stubs. Corinal (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not nominated for deletion because it is a stub, it was nominated for deletion because it has no demonstrated feature coverage in reliable sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)