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 Delete. A redirect to Taiwan, if wanted, can be created separately. Fram (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan island group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

As a Taiwanese editor, I have never heard of this term. Google ("Taiwan island group", "台灣群島", "台灣島群") does not turn up significant usage of the phrase as a formal, well-defined geographical term in reliable sources. wctaiwan (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested in the article, neither 島羣 or 羣島 is used. 諸島 is used instead. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never heard of it either, which is why I thought it was a hoax. Google it, turns up nothing. I suggest it be redirected to List of islands of the Republic of China.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is the name of this island group then? You opposed Taiwan Islands before. Shall we try Taiwan Archipelago next? What has to be done that you stop denying the existing of an island group around Taiwan Island? @"Google it, turns up nothing." - 88000 results = 0 results? Again problems with basic maths? I ask this because you already redirected Taiwan island group to Taiwan [1], but the latter is about ONE island as the intro prominently explains. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as passing references to the term can be found but nothing that indicates that it is a notable individual concept as opposed to the wording that individual writers happened to choose to describe the geography of the area. Kansan (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Taiwan islands are not notable? Why treat them differently compared with others in Category:Archipelagoes of the Pacific Ocean? Please think again why this island group should not have an article. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, no independent notability. Individual islands of note, such as Orchid Island and Green Island, have their own articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think these islands are not "notable" - whatever that means - as opposed to the Spratly Islands or the Matsu Islands? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asserted that they have no independent notability simply because I can't find a significant number of reliable sources discussing them as an 'island group'. Notability isn't a matter of whether you or I think something is important or not; it's whether there are significant numbers of reliable sources referring to the topic at hand. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dr. Blofeld and nom. GotR ^Talk 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has to be done that you stop denying the existing of an island group around Taiwan Island? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. All archipelagos should have their own article. Other island groups already have their own articles, e.g. Spratly Islands, Matsu Islands, Paracel Islands. Find more at Category:Archipelagoes of the Pacific Ocean. RENAME if you like. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The islands are listed at List of islands of the Republic of China#Taiwan. And per User:Nwlaw63, who pointed out that all the notable islands have their own articles. CityOfSilver 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably Rename and restructure -- If we do not have one already there should be room in WP for an article with a title something like Islands of Taiwan (which currently redirects to the article we are discussing) or Island possessons of Taiwan, providing a greater overview than the list at List of islands of the Republic of China can do. The WP consensus is that we should refer to the polity officially known as the Republic of China as "Taiwan". This implies a mass rename for exisitng articles and categories using RoC. However, perhaps it may be better for the list article to be expanded into something more substantial, with one of the names suggested and the present artile made a redirect to it. Note -- I came here because Huayu-Huayu asked me to, but (as will be seen) I am expressing my own view, not merely supporting his. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • Revoted below -- but to much the same effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about all islands of Taiwan!!! You don't understand the topic at all!!! Huayu-Huayu (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you are so passionate about keeping this article, I recommend you find a bunch of reliable sources referring to 'Taiwan Island Group', because right now the lack of such sources is what may have the article deleted. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Don't delete. Or else merge into and redirect to Taiwan (island). 203.145.92.175 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article significantly expanded. 203.145.92.175 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting due to the late changes to the article. I would note that none of the additions were referenced however. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  This AfD has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_for_WP:Identifiability.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Taiwan and redirect There should never have been an AfD citing the title as a reason. Purely desctriptive titles are fine if there is no common name. All that is needed is an identifiable topic dealt with as such in secondary sources, e.g. geography books with a chapter on the subject. There does not need to be a common name. I'm proposing merging as there doesn't seem to be enough to have a separate article on the subject. And merges should not be done by AfD either except in extreme circumstances. So the merge is really keep and I think a merge discussion should be started. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this AfD because to my knowledge (and from what I've seen on Google), there is no widely recognised grouping of Taiwan and the surrounding islands--Should Kinmen and Matsu be included? Should Penghu be included? What about Diaoyutai Islands? (The article answers those, but I do not feel it is adequately sourced for what would be a fairly major topic.) The title isn't the issue, the issue is that (as far as I know) the concept is ill-defined and isn't supported by usage in reliable sources. List of islands of the Republic of China serves a large part of the article's purpose, and would be far less disputed. wctaiwan (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suppose it takes time for sources to be added. That list doesn't answer these questions, although it implicitly does by having separate sections for the different groups of islands, namely, Taiwan, Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas, and Itu Aba. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Compare this with Zanzibar Archipelago, Zanzibar and Unguja (the main island that is also known as Zanzibar). 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CityOfSilver 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This has been open for a week, and no sources have been added. CMD (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • New sources are added throughout the article. 203.145.92.173 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect to List of islands of the Republic of China. Wasn't it clear first time?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename' 147.8.232.140 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cross Wiki-Spam (the same in jp, de and at least nl) of chinese nationalist POV by an IP from PRC. This is not a common or approved geographical term. Weissbier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  Doesn't look particularly "nationalist" to me. Anyway, I noticed that the German version of this article was deleted as "nationalist OR", and invited the deleting admin over there to come and join this discussion. Deryck C. 21:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and rename if necessary. The article's subject certainly has significant RS coverage in Chinese and Japanese as "台灣諸島" (see footnotes of the article, and ja:台湾諸島). We don't need to delete another article for technicalities regarding the article name. Redirection to List of islands of the Republic of China is, though intuitive, not a correct outcome, because they do not refer to exactly the same group of islands. Deryck C. 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources given are quite old: The Japanese one dates from when Taiwan was annexed to the Empire of Japan, during which time it would have made sense to refer to "the Islands of Taiwan," which is the literal meaning of "台灣諸島" in Chinese (and I suspect in Japanese as well). I don't think the grouping itself (not just the title) is a current or widely recognised concept. wctaiwan (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read the term is still used among the academia from within the Republic of China in the 2000s. For example 日本的東海政策, p.21 and 國防科技概論-全民國防教育補充教材, p.22. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first document, "台灣諸島" refers literally to "the various islands of Taiwan". The second one is a dead link, so I can't check. wctaiwan (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

列島, 諸島 and 羣島 all mean isles, islands or archipelago. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

´Delete as strongly POVious and/or nonsense. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's so POVious(?) and nonsense? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider to read Island group. Archipelagos are not created by grouping islands in the same country but they're geographically grouped together. So for instance there are Aegean Islands, no matter wether they're turkish or greek. There's no Greek Islands Group or a Turkish Islands Group. Concerncing the RoC we have the big island of Taiwan and several isolated islands in the area as well as Kinmen, the Spratly Islands, the Matsu Islands, the Pratas Islands and the Pescadores. Most of all, the sources cited in the article lack on reliability or are otherwise irrelevant. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That's why this article doesn't cover Kinmen, the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands and the Matsu Islands. They aren't part of this archipelago just because they are part of the Republic of China. Similarly, we don't define the Senkaku Islands as part of the geographical Ryukyu Islands just because it's politically part of the Okinawa Prefecture. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Deryck C. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, probably renamed. I consider that List of islands of the Republic of China (which covers the same ground) should be merged with this article (or vice versa). I would suggest that the merged article should be called Islands of Taiwan. WP has reached a consensus that WP will refer to the polity offically called the Republic of China as "Taiwan", which is strictly the name of its (overwhelmingly) largest island. Any discrepancy in scope between the two articles can be resolved by pruning or expanding so that they cover exactly the same material. It is a regret to me that so many of the new references are in Chinese. This may be necessary, but could these at least be translated?Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've translated the Chinese and Japanese language titles for the scrutiny of other editors. Deryck C. 12:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read from the sources cited in the article, it doesn't cover all the islands of the ROC. The count (15 or 79, depending on whether the Pescadores are included) reveals that Quemoy, Matsu, the Pratas, and so on, aren't covered. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, some of the Japanese islands in the Pacific Ocean, such as Okinotori-shima and Ogasawara-gunto, aren't part of the Japanese Archipelago, although part of Japan. Quemoy, Itu Aba aren't part of the Taiwanese Archipelago per se. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Let's look at another set of islands in the same island chain. We got articles on Japan, the Japanese Archipelago, the Home Islands, Honshu, and a List of islands of Japan. All these are different from each other. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CityOfSilver 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reads "While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article.", "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation." and "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename. 1.65.157.174 (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article was moved to a more proper title a few days ago. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under the new title. 202.64.29.231 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nomination and above. 202.189.108.245 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 59.188.42.63 (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2012 (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.