Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (2nd nomination)


 * 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.

The result was   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As it stands, the article looks like a POV-fork of Taiwan Province, which focuses on the claims of the PRC over Taiwan. However, these claims are already fully documented, in a neutral way, in Taiwan, Republic of China and Taiwan Province so we don't need a fourth independent article for it. Even if there was some unique content in the article, we could easily merge it in Taiwan province. Laurent (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge and redirect to Taiwan province, we don't need separate articles covering the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. based on comments further down I now understand this isn't duplicating Taiwan Province. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, 1) it does not cover the same thing. The PRC and ROC provincial administrations are not identicial, 2) it is not a POV fork, it is not dedicated to arguing in favor of the PRC position of Taiwan, but 3) deals with a real-life subject, namely the PRC provinical administration. The fact that Wikipedia has an article on a subject is not an endorsement. The provinicial administration of the PRC is notable on its own, and is a different subject than the politics of the Taiwan issue, Taiwan (the island), ROC (which is a state) and the ROC Taiwan province. The PRC province does exist, even though PRC has no control over the territory in question. It is an entity with representation within the PRC state machinery, and is a notable subject of its own. Compare with the existence of Judea and Samaria Area (an Israeli administrative unit without international recognition) and West Bank (geographic area). --Soman (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The provinicial administration of the PRC may be notable, but it still doesn't mean we should have an entire article about it. As mentioned above, there is nothing in this article that we cannot merge into the more neutral Taiwan Province. The latter already mentions the claims of the PRC in the introduction, and has an entire section about them, which is all we need. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a POV-fork because it isolates the PRC's POV from the rest of the articles, and prevents us from giving the full picture. Laurent (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Taiwan Province is about a province of the ROC which does not encompass the entire island. This article in question discusses the PRC "administration" for the entirety of the island, as well as nearby islands, which are not part of the ROC province. Fundamentally, they're different concepts. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article contains information that is already covered in Taiwan, and without the Beijing-centric POV. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In revisiting this discussion, I am impressed with the arguments in favor of keeping the article. Therefore, count me in as a Keep person. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regardless of what one thinks of the PRC's claim to Taiwan, the fact is that the PRC does claim to have a province called Taiwan Province, and the borders of that province according to the PRC are not the same as the borders of the Republic of China's Taiwan Province. My main concern with this article is that it could be used to justify a series of articles about Andong Province, Republic of China, Anhui Province, Republic of China, and numerous other provinces and municipalities located on the mainland and officially claimed by the ROC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there's no point creating a separate article for every single territory a country claims. We can easily do it in the main article. Likewise, if the borders are not the same, we can also document it in the main, neutral, article. Again, I just can't see any technical reason why there has to be two separate articles. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, this article is not about the PRC claims, but on the PRC province. The relevant question is, did ROC maintain provincial administrations 'in exile' for the pre-1949 provinces. I think they did, but I can't find a reference right now. If there was a 'Anhui Province' administration in Taipei, we could have articles about that. The difference is that I think (guessing) institutions like parliament etc. in ROC is elected only on basis of the 'Free Area', not the claimed provinces of the mainland. In the PRC state aparatus, the 'Taiwan Province' has its own representation, and is there by a real existing political entity (in spite that PRC never controlled Taiwan). --Soman (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Trying to merge PRC information to ROC information is JUST ASKING FOR TROUBLE. It just does not work. There is no reason to merge these things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * What sort of trouble do you expect? Are you saying that we should just give up on being neutral in Taiwan articles? Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep this article describes the theoretical territory as designated by the PROC, as opposed to the territory of the province governed by the ROC. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the territory claimed by the PRC is not strictly the same as the one controlled by the ROC, we can document that in the main article, perhaps by adding a map of the Taiwan Province, as claimed by the PRC. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep You don't have to agree that Taiwan is part of China for an article on Beijing's claims to exist. Taffy (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about agreeing with the PRC or not. I don't agree or disagree - it's just about being neutral. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep See explanation above. Fundamentally different from the ROC province. This is the equilavent of any other province of China, which all have articles. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the fact that, as ridiculous as it may seem, an administrative organ that represents Taiwan does exist in the PRC government. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Taiwan Province exists as such, just some sentences have to be changed Rirunmot (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Soman and others.--Danaman5 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not a POV fork but an article describing a real-world parallel administration for a geographic area. It is equivalent to having articles on both Morocco's Southern Provinces and the SADR, or both the Palestinian Authority and the Judea and Samaria area. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 1st of all, this is not a POV fork, which I think we all agree. Also, there IS a point to keep it because as for all Provinces of PRC, there is a funcation for this province - Such as the National People's Congress. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the People's Republic of China has not ruled Taiwan since its establishment, Taiwan Province is officially recongnized by the PRC and it is stated in the Constitution of People's Republic of China. Therefore, the article should be reserved. Ricky@36 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.