Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of China (1949–71)

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 redirect to Taiwan after World War II. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China (1949–71) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork. Seems to be largely copied and pasted from Taiwan after World War II and Taiwan, breaking references and categories along the way, without proper attribution or any rationale given. Taiwan after World War II in particular is far from too long and does not need breaking up this way. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: Rather than deleting, in a civil manner, this should redirect to Taiwan article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.176.163 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rearrange Currently there are several ways of content overlapping/forking on the subject: Taiwan after World War II, History of Taiwan#Republic of China rule, History of the Republic of China, Republic of China (1912–49), of ones I see. The whole subject must be cleanly split according to chronology and Wikipedia:Summary style. 1949 ans 1971 are clearly the major watershed dates in the history of ROC, hence the article makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. @JohnBlackburne: The problem is not the length of article TaWWII, but the same content maintained in several articles, with the danger of diverging. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t see how 1971 is a major watershed date. It’s the date Taiwan left the UN but nothing fundamentally changed at the time, no more than it changed for China or any other country when they joined the UN. The event merits only a paragraph in the middle of a section in Taiwan after World War II, and that article is not split into “before 1971” and “after 1971“, as you would expect if it were a clear demarkation of the history of Taiwan.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a content fork of Taiwan after World War II. I agree that History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China should be written in summary style, but the necessary sub-article already exists, namely Taiwan after World War II. 1949 is obviously a watershed date, but so is 1945, and even if the article started at 1949 it would need an introductory section on the re-occupation of the island in 1945–49. On the other hand, UN derecognition in 1971 was a major event in foreign affairs, but not a watershed in the running of the place. The range 1949–71 does not have the clear-cut status of 1912–49. So Taiwan after World War II is appropriate as the sub-article. If it gets too big, people can decide on appropriate sub-articles. Kanguole 02:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as User:Staszek Lem said, this article I created shows the period of the ROC which was the founding member of the UN from their exile on the mainland in 1949 to when Communist China became recognized by the UN in 1971 when Nationalist China lost its seat and membership in the UN, the UNSC and its organs. This article needs to be heavily rewritten. During that period, Taiwan is just the name of the island, but the name of the state, the "Republic of China" or "Nationalist China" was used in contrast to the "People's Republic of China" or "Communist China" in the Mainland. Look at the articles in Sudan like the History of Sudan (1956–69) and the History of Sudan (1969–85) for example. In short, this article makes sense and will remain. Wrestlingring (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the Taiwan after World War II article already exist.--Thomasettaei (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think we should merge this with Taiwan after World War II, or at least redirect to it. This is because of the overlap. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - This is a clear fork of Taiwan after World War II. This is actually the more encyclopedic title, to my mind. Carrite (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge: Second objection. If that's the case, some parts from the article incl. infobox could be merged with Taiwan after World War II. Secondly, this article should remain as a stand-alone like the articles of History of Sudan (1956–69) and the History of Sudan (1969–85) which contained country infoboxes if the Wikipedia:Summary style understands it. Wrestlingring (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  — Duplicate vote: Wrestlingring (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

• Delete as a content fork, echoing others. Renaming the extant article with the date-range style may be warranted, but is a matter of editorial discretion (and probably needs an RFC), rather than a topic for AFD. In any case, comparisons to the Sudan timeline articles are not convincing; those have a bright-line division in 1969 when the Free Officers Movement executed a coup. During the 1956–69 period, the country operated as the Republic of Sudan, while from 1969–85, it was the Democratic Republic of Sudan. No such clear division occurred with regard to the Republic of China/Taiwan in 1971. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I checked, there are four articles that covered the History of South Korea which is partitioned into the first, second, third and fourth republics. So deleting this article will risk on partition the articles of Chinese history altogether. Wrestlingring (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the big problem I have with this article is that nothing changed about the government of Taiwan in 1971. South Korea has a large number of historical government articles (in addition to the ones you listed, there is a fifth republic, plus the current South Korea article (for what is technically also the sixth republic). But that's because it has had fundamental government changes, toggling between civilian, military, and "civilian" (but really military) rule over the years, with various different constitutions in place. None of that happened in Taiwan in 1971. The expulsion of the ROC representatives from the United Nations is an important event in the country's history, but it does not mark the end of one government (or historical period) and the start of a new one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a content fork. Phlar (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I voted to keep the article already, can we merge the forked article instead? Wrestlingring (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think a merger is better. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is there to merge? All of it seems to be copied from the Taiwan after World War II, History of Taiwan and Taiwan articles, often with no changes at all. Kanguole 00:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it appears as if no text copied tags have been placed on the talk pages of the pages you mentioned, nor on this one. I think this should be merged if the editors of this article haven't edited those articles, in order to fulfil attribution requirements. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No such tags were placed as the copy and paste was done incorrectly, with no attribution in the edit summaries or anywhere in the affected articles and their talk pages. No significant new content has been added except a table, but that is largely unsourced and even if it were sourced the information in it is largely trivia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:53, 7 October 2016 (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.