Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (4th 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. This AFD will close as the previous 3 AFDs on this article closed, with a consensus to Keep it. There were some editors advocating Deletion but arguments--that this claim actually exists and has existed for awhile (not transient)--and the numbers were on the side of those advocating Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It is well known that the PRC claims Taiwan as a Province of China, as described in Taiwan, China and Political status of Taiwan and One-China policy. This article title violates WP:POVFORK as no independent reliable sources cited describe Taiwan as a province of China. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China cited is obviously a WP:Primary source and cannot be used in the context of establishing Notability of the subject for a standalone page, and it certainly can't be used for writing an article with a Neutral point of view. The recent deletions of Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) set the standard for how claimed administrative entities should be covered on Wikipedia. If this page is kept, editors should provide secondary sources showing the claim is a significant viewpoint, warranting its own article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't dug into the sourcing yet, but leaning keep on the basis that I don't think it makes sense to cite the Kherson and Donetsk articles as an airtight precedent. The big issue with those articles was WP:CRYSTALBALL; in this case, despite the fact that the PRC has no control or authority over Taiwan, it has for decades appointed or elected government ministers to represent it. The validity or lack thereof of the PRC's claims aside, this administrative entity has existed for a long time. I would be amazed if academic sources on this topic were unavailable, as it concerns the maintenance of PRC claims on Taiwan, a dispute that has shaped East Asian politics since its inception and continues to do so today (unfortunately, a simple google scholar search is overwhelmed by results comprising papers published in China about unrelated topics that happen to mention something recent happening in Taiwan). By contrast, the Kherson and Donetsk administrations were announced mere weeks ago, and even setting aside the question of actual control of the land, much remains unclear as to how Russia plans on "administering" these regions internally. If claims on Kherson and Donetsk remain sticking points of Russian politics in 10 years, they probably will merit articles. It's also worth noting that every prior time this page has been nominated, the result has been landslide keep. signed,Rosguill talk 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I initially favoured keeping the Kherson article and renaming it to Kherson military–civilian administration, though I changed it to delete as Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast covered it adequately. I would be open to changing the title of this article to something like Taiwan as a Province of China, but the current title appears to support a PRC claim and is not supported by independent reliable sources. I don't doubt academic sources also cover the subject, but the big question is how they do so, and if China appointing officials makes Taiwan a province of China. I don't think sources support that claim. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a claimed part of the PRC. That's what the article is about. Titling it similar to other claimed PRC territories simply makes sense; the article can and does clearly explain the level of international recognition and actual control they have of the territory. There's nothing wrong with this title from a POV perspective. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The POV perspective that Taiwan is a province of China is a PRC claim disputed by the ROC, and unsupported by independent reliable sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Taiwan Province is a province of the PRC. That's not a "disputed claim", any more than it is a disputed claim that the ROC claims all of mainland China. Both of these are simply facts. What's disputed is whether the PRC's Taiwan Province is the legitimate government of the island of Taiwan. There is no doubt that this province exists as a PRC governmental entity, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That the PRC claims Taiwan as a province of the PRC is not disputed, but it is not otherwise supported by independent reliable sources, which makes it a POV perspective. There is also a WP:OR concern as while the ROC and PRC still officially claim eachother's territories as their own, it is subject to (our) interpretation of their constitutions, and the current position of the Government of the Republic of China is not the same as the historical position of the Republic of China (1912–1949), and that's why there isn't a standalone article on the ROC's supposed claim over mainland china. Like I said in my nomination, a keep close should be able to show secondary sources representing the PRC's claim as a significant viewpoint, warranting its own article. Having just read WP:NDESC, I would also add that secondary sources should show "Taiwan Province" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject, otherwise it should be renamed to something more neutral. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We actually do have some of these, for example Chekiang Province, Republic of China, though they're written in a historical sense (even though they are current claims of the ROC, the ROC doesn't really do anything regarding those claims, unlike the PRC claiming Taiwan Province). Administrative divisions of Taiwan also explains this, though that article isn't written in the clearest way.
 * There is absolutely nothing non-neutral about the name "Taiwan Province" for an entity that's called "Taiwan Province". This article does not need a descriptive title. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing has changed from the previous AfDs. This is about the claimed Chinese governmental entity; it's not a POVFORK of anything. The recent deletions did not set any standard; a major reason for their deletion was the relatively murky situation surrounding whether they actually exist as entities, or will for a long period of time. Neither of those issues is present here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply put, this province does not exist, and there should not be a Wikipedia article treating it as if it did. Surely we have articles that cover China's claims over Taiwan, so whatever name they have concocted for this can be covered adeqately in a sentence or two there. I would draw attention to the recent Russian propaganda regarding the Ukrainian territories that they "annexed", despite having no operational control over said territories. These propaganda articles, such as the Russian Kherson Oblast were deleted. Zaathras (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing in this article that shouldn't already be a part of Political status of Taiwan, which much more properly discusses the specific topic herein. As it stands, the article above looks like a WP:POVFORK made specifically to try and legitimize the claims of the Chinese government. No such administrative region exists as defined by China, so there's no need for this article and any content in it is better covered in the political status article, which is on an actual topic with proper sourcing. Silver  seren C 01:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, this nomination rationale is flawed. An article title cannot violate POVFORK; POVFORK has nothing to do with titles. To the contrary, names that imply a particular POV are fine per WP:POVNAME. What matters is article content, and not much about that has been raised here. Sources are not needed to cover the idea that "the claim is a significant viewpoint", because this article is not about a viewpoint, but about a particular legal construct. The statement above that "this province does not exist, and there should not be a Wikipedia article treating it as if it did" is met, as the article seems pretty clear about what does and doesn't exist. Rosguill covers well the differences with other recent AfDs.The idea this article should be merged into Political status of Taiwan is a more interesting discussion about how to structure information, but the particular suggestion of a merge to Political status of Taiwan seems suboptimal, as the interesting relevant content about this entity, such as the delegation in the NPC, would be highly undue there. Perhaps there is a better way to structure the information, the current page is a bit muddled, but that isn't something AfD will help with much. CMD (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a child article of Political status of Taiwan, and that article sits at 72 kB of readable prose. This article could potentially be merged in to it, but I think that would, with all the content and accompanying maps, take up an undue amount of space there. As a topic, the PRC's in name only province is notable in its own right, even if it didnt merit being split off just due to size considerations. Im not sure how people are saying this article legitimizes anything, it goes at great pains to say this is what China claims, but it does not actually possess the ability to enforce.  nableezy  - 02:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - the province exists de jure according to the nation’s own constitution, it has political delegations bodies etc designated for the province to political bodies. The thing is that administration is not actually executed on the actual province itself i.e. PRC does not actually administrate on ground on Taiwan. If you were to complete official legal documentations etc in China you would have see indications and references to Taiwan Province, People’s Republic of China rather than the Taiwan Province, Republic of China. Just pointing out that the province does exist in legal terms in the country. This comment is not championing the reasons for the PRC’s claims, but rather acknowledging an existence of the political framework system that sustain that claim. It would be different if the claim was not sustained or pursued. For example legally Mongolia is part of the Republic of China but the Republic of China has not opened that can of worms since the democratization of the Republic of China. Up to the 1980s democratization period, the Republic of China was still pursuant in regaining the original Republic of China lands in its constitution ( these lands include the mainland and Mongolia). And this is not just one sided on the PRC. For any country to have diplomatic relations with the PRC they must acknowledge (not necessary endorse) the existence of the PRC’s position on its territorial definitions. Any country that has diplomatic relations with the PRC acknowledges the existence of the PRC’s territorial definitions and One China principle in the world. It’s impossible for any country to have full fledged diplomatic relations with both PRC and ROC - it’s only one or only the other.
 * Likewise on the other hand the Republic of China will not give an endorsement on any country’s position that acknowledges the PRC position as that in turn defies the ROC’s territorial integrity. Yeungkahchun (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This province does not exist, it's basically a government's claim on another country. There is no logic for an article that seemingly substantiates a territorial claim in this manner by appearing to be an article on an existing state, that does not exist (and never has). Looking at the various articles on the area, as has been mentioned above, it should be merged with Political_status_of_Taiwan. As it is, IMHO it is a POV fork. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re referring to the fact that the province has no administrative control but not the fact that the province itself actually exists. The province constitutionally exists: the institutions and the legal structures for the province exist. This is not a “it’s my claim from PRC because I just said it”. Bodies and instruments of state exist. There’s delegations, political bodies, and documentative apparatus for this entity. The only thing is that there is no active occupation on the island itself. The Republic of China (Taiwan) itself is aware of the existence of this institution and totally disproves the escalatory actions the PRC takes in order to execute propagandize campaigns against and intimidate the people of Taiwan or cut off Taiwan from the rest of the world through  propaganda with respect to this entity and its institutions. The roc constantly seeks the PRC’s de-escalation in regards to this entity: this entity disrespects the territorial integrity of the ROC,  and the ROC is urgent for the PRC to de-escalate and respect the ROC’s territorial integrity. The position of the ROC is that the ROC wants peace and the status quo. The ROC does not want escalation or provocations with the PRC and constantly seeks deescalation.  Furthermore the ROC strongly refutes any country’s position that takes actions toward achieving military actions that would  allow this political entity to usurp the ROC as this in turn defies the ROC’s territorial integrity. Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that the PRC can claim a country that isn't there's and have no control over...and then produce a whole bunch of legislation about it, doesn't make the reason for the article any more valid. Any country can produce invalid legislation with no basis, Putin has just done it for Ukraine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not about describing Taiwan as part of China, which would be a WP:POVFORK. The text of the article makes it crystal clear that this is not the case. This is about an administrative subdivision of China that exists according to Chinese law and even elects delegates to the national legislature, even if obviously de facto control of the claimed areas is administered by Taiwan. This is also a valid child article of the main Political status of Taiwan article, which deals with the dispute at a very high level, is already quite long, and does not need to be filled with technical descriptions and minutiae of how China actually administers a province it has zero de facto control over. The deletion of the recent Russian articles seems primarily based on the lack of reliable sources that would justify a split from the occupation articles, which already cover the Russian administration. There were also concerns raised about the poorly defined and swiftly changing territorial boundaries of both claimed and controlled territory as the war goes on, and just general uncertainty since the articles were created before the requisite changes to Russian law and constitutional documents were fully implemented. None of those concerns exist here, though admittedly the sourcing in the article could be better. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – the article is extensive and has sourced information, obviously not about a de facto province, but rather about a clearly notable aspect of Chinese political administration. Merging to Political status of Taiwan is probably not a good idea – that article is already pretty long, and I agree with User:Chipmunkdavis that much of the information here would be undue there. This article does not read like a POV fork; if anything, it may be slightly biased against a pro-unification point of view, with its emphasis on statements that are often cited in support of Taiwanese independence (e.g. "the PRC has never controlled any part of Taiwan"), not balanced by statements that are often cited in support of unification (e.g. previous Chinese governments' control of Taiwan). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, China,  and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The OP's rationale is severely flawed. "The recent deletions of Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)  set the standard for how claimed administrative entities should be covered on Wikipedia."  is NOT how things work.  Every discussion on every topic is only about that topic.  Deletion of one article has no bearing on the deletion of another article that was not discussed in that discussion.  If the primary rationale to delete this article is "we deleted other articles earlier", then no, that is not a valid rationale.  Each article is to be considered on its own, compared to its own text and to Wikipedia's PAGs, and not to any other article which may or may not have any relevant connection to this one.  -- Jayron 32 15:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - unlike the recently deleted Russian articles, this does in fact verifiably exist as an administrative unit (the fact that it doesn't control the territory is moot - in fact it's the exact opposite scenario of the Russian articles). Claiming that those deletions set some kind of precedent is irrelevant per WP:OSE anyways, just as the fact this article has been kept at AfD multiple times did not magically save those from deletion. ansh. 666  16:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the nominator has valid points, there's WP:COATRACK issues and the article should be renamed. However, these are content issues and there is enough material to justify a separate article. I do agree with comments above that the Russia/Ukraine examples are not relevant here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep it is not a WP:POVFORK because it is simply stating the PRC's position on Taiwan, not claiming that it is objectively true in any way. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article as it reads now literally declares Taiwan as a province of the People's Republic of China (in WP:WIKIVOICE) based on a WP:PRIMARY source (the constitution of the People's Republic of China). How is that not a claim of objective truth? IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Taiwan is a province per the constitution of the People's Republic of China. That's a pretty objective truth? Not sure what you are going for here. CMD (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How does one country's constitution claiming a territory as its own "province" (or administrative region, or any other similar descriptor) make it an "objective" truth? It at least needs to be attributed as a claim. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing there is a claim? It is pretty universal among all sources that China claims Taiwan ("renegade province" is a term often used). The text as written expands upon the applicability of the claim, but even if it didn't that wouldn't affect the truthiness of the claim existing. CMD (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that there is such a claim. I'm disputing the way the claim is being presented as an objective truth, and I have suggested alternative wording for the page and lead sentence . IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your proposed wording has exactly the same meaning as the current sentence, so I am really confused as to what truth you're reading into this article. CMD (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly the same. I proposed addition of "defined by the PRC constitution". See: Citing_sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is already there. CMD (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As of right now, the lead sentence remains unattributed. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence stating China considers Taiwan one of its provinces? There's very simple WP:BEFORE that should have been done if that is why this is at AfD. CMD (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this isn't a POV fork, and it's not clear what it's supposed to be a POV fork of. This article is entirely about an administrative entity created by the PRC, it doesn't pretend to be an article about Taiwan in the sense that Taiwan does. If that was the case then it would have sections about history, geography, culture etc. Given how important the Taiwan dispute is there are almost certainly plenty of sources about this, and merging it into Political status of Taiwan wouldn't make sense given the length of that article and the fact this isn't one of the most important aspects of the dispute. The deletion of the Kherson and Donetsk articles does not set any kind of precedent (there's no such thing at AfD) and those deletions were motivated in large part by WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns which don't apply here, and the POV fork arguments were rather more solidly made.  Hut 8.5  11:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * merge to ? There are too many articles on Taiwan, and they are bafflingly organized. Personally, I think splitting ROC and Taiwan into separate articles makes the most sense, and merging this—reduced, as there is no reason to go into detail about the fictions of political organization—into the latter is the best approach. If this article has to stay, it needs to be up front about the reality that this is all pretend. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All governmental entities are "made up". It's made clear that this entity currently does not have control of the island of Taiwan, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose the idea that we should split the article "Taiwan" into two separate articles. The common understanding of Taiwan is that it is a de facto sovereign state, even though its political status is very strange, such as its official name being "Republic of China". Splitting the ROC out of the Taiwan article (and splitting the Taiwan article out of the ROC article) would be an egregious POV-fork. These two topics are inextricably linked. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We already do have that; it's Taiwan Province. It's just that the common name for the Republic of China is "Taiwan". Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what the article "Taiwan Province" is actually about. Taiwan Province is effectively an administrative subdivision of Taiwan itself. Yes, it's very confusing, but that's indeed a fact. Obviously, "Taiwan" refers to the country that is officially known as the "Republic of China". The entity that is known as "Taiwan Province" (on Wikipedia) refers to one of the top-tier subdivisions of the country, alongside Taipei, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Taichung, New Taipei, Taoyuan, and "Fuchien Province" (Kinmen + Matsu). Taiwan Province previously contained the six aforementioned cities, but those six cities were administratively split out of the province to effectively form their own provinces. Effectively, the Republic of China on Taiwan is comprised of eight provinces with de facto control (albeit only a tiny percentage in the case of Fuchien Province), and maybe 30 provinces that have not been controlled by the ROC since 1949. The political statuses of the six aforementioned cities is very similar to the political statuses of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing, Hong Kong, and Macau in the PRC. These cities are effectively "independent cities" that qualify as top-level subdivisions, alongisde the now truncated (i.e. pieces cut off) Taiwan Province and tiny bit of Fuchien Province. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That was kinda my point... I agree that we shouldn't split up the Taiwan article into one describing the ROC and one describing Taiwan because they are at this point two names for the same entity; our article on Taiwan Province explains the administrative structure of that province within the ROC (though it's no longer used for much). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Taiwan Province" article is not a POV-fork, because even if it describes a mostly-defunct administrative subdivision of Taiwan/ROC in the present day, the entity "Taiwan Province" existed in the past, before Taiwan became de facto independent. Taiwan Province existed as a distinctive entity towards the end of the Qing dynasty's reign, in 1887 to 1895. Hence, Taiwan Province is undeniably a "historical entity", even if the PRC's interpretation of "Taiwan Province" doesn't exist in the present day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is a fiction in that it claims to administer an area which it does not in fact administer. We can mention somewhere that the PRC has this fake bureaucracy. but the details of it are seriously WP:UNDUE. 19:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even though I am opposed to the PRC's claim to Taiwan, it does indeed represent a major viewpoint albeit one that is almost solely held by the PRC. The PRC is a large country; 1.4 billion inhabitants. The PRC is also an economic superpower, with other factors (e.g. military and political influence) that render it one of the great powers of the world (some would argue a superpower). China also has a large geographic area. Whichever way you spin it, China is a big deal, even if it stands alone in its expansionist intentions towards Taiwan. With that being said, the article probably does require closer scrutiny to make sure that it is adhering to the principles of WP:NPOV. I can envision how this article could easily become derailed by pro-PRC activists. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep With a few exceptions, Taiwan is recognized as part of the People's Republic of China. But recognition is not required in order to have an article just sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It's not actually a POV fork because the article explains the government structures China has set up for the province, such as federal legislators. Neutrality does not mean that articles should come down on the side of either of the two Chinas, but merely that we should outline any disputes. TFD (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's accurate that countries recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC. Recognising the PRC as the "One China" does not necessarily entail recognising Taiwan as a part of that "One China". These are two separate issues and they should not be conflated. Various countries seem to hold ambiguous stances on the status of Taiwan, even though many of these same countries have relations with the PRC and do not maintain official relations with the ROC on Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a discussion of the legal structure that the PRC has built up as a province of Taiwan. It is a complex sub-topic of the political status of Taiwan, not a POV fork. The topic is supported by a wide range of reliable sources and is the topic of substantial discussion in secondary sources. It ought to have a wikipedia article, just like all sorts of other fictional places (Mordor, Neverland, etc). Furius (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing has changed with regards to Taiwan's status since the last discussion, so a 4th nomination is WP:DEADHORSE at this point. Others has already explained why the Kherson situation is completely different, not that it matters. The nominator's rationale is quite bizarre. "This article title violates WP:POVFORK as no independent reliable sources cited describe Taiwan as a province of China." This doesn't make sense as the article does not claim Taiwan to actually be a part of China, it's about the de jure Chinese claim; the country and the claimed Chinese province are different administrative entities so it categorically cannot be WP:POVFORK which is when there's a fork about the same subject. "If this page is kept, editors should provide secondary sources showing the claim is a significant viewpoint" What does this mean, in any territorial dispute between sovereign states the viewpoint of each state is in and of itself a 'significant viewpoint', especially when one of the states is a nuclear power. And plenty of RS have obviously talked about the dispute and that China claims Taiwan.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  06:22, 19 October 2022 (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.