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 No result. Given how radically the article has changed during this AfD, many of the comments are not applicable any more, and as such there is no valid result to be obtained here (not even a "no consensus"; the discussion is simply irrelevant to determining the notability of the article as it stands). I suspect Chinese military exercises are notable, but if anyone disagrees, a new AfD will be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable non-event. Entirely WP:SYNTH/WP:OR; the article takes from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that none of the sources say. No sources specifically describing this hypothetical exist. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the article now is practically an entirely new article, with a complete topical shift to boot. This has got to be one of the worst, most chaotic and nonsensical AfDs I've ever been a part of. Curbon7 (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, some sources mentioning a fourth crisis do exist, such as [1][2], but this still does not surmount to notability on it's own, as the coverage is very superficial. Feels far WP:TOOSOON still. Curbon7 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. As of now there hasn't been much more than the usual Chinese air drills inside Taiwan's ADIZ and bellicose rhetoric. As it has already been said, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. And calling the current events the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" definitely is sensationalism: compared to the previous three, what's happening right now is peanuts. BilletsMauves€500 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. I checked five of the sources and none of them mention the concept of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 20:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a NOTABLE and widely reported actual EVENT in 2021, multiple PRC military planes entered the ROC's ADIZ. Therefore I have expanded the scope of the article accordingly, and we should ignore the opinions of editors ignorant of this history or unwilling to account for it. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article was not lack of notability. The problem was it was biased toward WP:Recentism and Anglo-Americanism. This can be corrected. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China's ADIZ is way bigger than its sovereign airspace, and some parts of it are situated over mainland China. Chinese "intrusions" in Taiwan's ADIZ are routine, and often take place several times a week. There have been hundreds of them, if not thousands, in the past years, and this did not start in 2021. While this ongoing series of ADIZ "violations" may be notable, related copy-pasted additions in the article really don't show that these sparked any kind of crisis. Interestingly, even though Chinese incursions in Taiwan's ADIZ are frequently reported even in mainstream media, these almost always fail to explain what an ADIZ actually is (i.e. not necessarily sovereign national airspace). Lastly, please keep it down with the caps and personal attacks. Thanks in advance. BilletsMauves€500 20:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not to say that the Fourth Crisis won't happen, but at least not at this stage - it could as well escalate into one and then we can create that article. For now, please delete.Kazuha1029 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not so much as mention a Fourth Crisis at this moment. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see. As per Jaredscribe, PRC's diplomatic reactions to Pelosi's visit and subsequent PLA drills are notable. Wait till the end of the events to determine how significant they turn out to be. NoNews! 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to wait and see for. It's a big nothing burger. The event has been over for a day and nothing has happened, besides a little display of materiel that is pretty routine for China. Curbon7 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we need to wait until there are numerous authoritative media sources that are reporting on a fourth crisis. Until then I think this article is jumping the gun. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, the media coverage is speculation if such a crisis would occur, and it has not yet happened. Once sources describe it as a thing that's actually currently happening then we can re-create. JumpytooTalk 05:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold / Modify article's contents - Request other users to archive the article's contents until information is substantiated for the article to be a thing. It was reported earlier the PLA fired two missiles from Fujian and traveled through the Taiwan Islands itself. Godspeed to whom may it concern. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed by other comments there are no references to this event as the "fourth crisis", thus modifications would be required or a complete deletion as the final solution. PenangLion (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with points that there are almost no notable sources referring to it as the Fourth Crisis. I think a new article can be proposed with a different name or (probably more sensibly) discussion of the military drills can be added to the article about Pelosi's visit. Dhawk790 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As HurricaneEdgar pointed out, this is straight up original research. There is no "Fourth Crisis" because of Pelosi's visit. No one is calling it that. We already have Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit. 121.179.189.157 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources are using the term "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis", but just using the term alone is not enough to demonstrate independent notability at this moment, as again, the coverage is mostly supeerficial. Curbon7 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep The actions undertaken by the PRC are a significant escalation. In addition, some sources have referred to the incident as the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis [1][2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticForce07 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is problematic, it isn't a crisis, yet, but it may develop to one. However, the live fire drills conducted by the Chinese around the island are probably already notable.PrisonerB (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under new name, the exercises are notable. PrisonerB (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or wait and see: The situation has escalated far enough to make it reasonable to either keep the article, or at least wait for some time before deletion. There are already some international reactions to the situation. The article was created WP:TOOSOON, but currently it means little. The problems can be fixed by editing the article. Ceosad (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now... BobNesh (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While you are not required to give a reason, if I may ask, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep this article? Elijahandskip (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very obviously notable event with endless media coverage to indicate that. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily modify. In its current form and with this title, this fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, as stated by others. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Comment: Stricken out, as the current title and scope of this article is totally different from when I first voted here. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. In its current form, this fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Almost wanted to say WP:RAPID, but since the mover from draft to mainspace is the AfD nominator, I do not believe it applies. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I am not the original creator, I don't wanna be tied to this mess of an article lol. I initially draftified it, but decided AfD was a better venue. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Did not know that, so thanks for clarifying that. I had just seen the move to mainspace then AfD, but yeah, you have nothing to do with the creation of this article. I just altered my comment because of what you said. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously is a crises when one nation starts lobbing military missiles and projectiles into another's waters. Highly notable, with much well sourced news coverage. The crises does not require a lot of dead and injured people to be a crises. N2e (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that even on Chinese Wikipedia there is an article referring to the 2022 strait crisis, discussing whether it can be called the "fourth crisis" or "2022 crisis" is one thing, but wanting to deny that there is currently a crisis is crazy. LLs (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Merge This article has improved a lot since it was first published and deletion is no longer a reasonable course of action, but I could see reorganizing it. Jsnider3 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was moved to 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan. I agree that it is WP:TOOSOON and that few sources call this crisis the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". The article needs cleanup, but I am against deleting all the work done so far, so I propose to draftify the article under the current name. P1221 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're now discussing on the basis of the new article name, shall we move the title of this AfD page to the new article title then? NoNews! 07:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion should be closed and a new one opened if necessary. Many of the oppose arguments no longer apply after with the new title. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need, the closing administrator will take the reasons for the !votes into account rather than the number of them. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE: — The article was moved to 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan by Txkk. Any !votes (Keep, delete, merge, or redirect) that !voted based on a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” need to re-!vote, since their vote no longer applies due to the renaming move. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The classic scummy page move during AfD. Re-votes are not necessary. If someone wants to change their rationale, they can strike. Curbon7 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Re-vote. Original reasoning doesn't apply after move. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC); edit: Strong keep per Mhawk10 below. Article might need work, but the solution is working on it, not deleting it. It is notable enough and with enough sources to keep it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AdrianHObradors - Please indicate your original vote as rescinded, as I've done for my own. Thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Modify) (vote rescinded, re-vote listed lower down the page) - The information in this article is not necessarily non-notable in and of itself, but the conclusions that editors originally came to when formulating the nascent title "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" were 100% original research. The first three Taiwan Strait crises are well recorded and researched, in large part due to having occurred a long time ago. Overall, there was no way that this article could stand with its former title. With its current title, it's a bit more acceptable, although there are still various issues with the actual content that's inside of the article. For example, why is Syria's opinion on the altercation so important, aside from simply being a puppet of Russia? (as we can see from Syria's recognition of the Russian breakaway republics in the Donbas). The only relevant players should be other East Asian nations and various world powers (either superpower, great power, or middle power). A third world country like Syria that is located far away from the conflict zone has no weight in this conversation, especially since there are only something like six countries' opinions listed at the moment. On the other hand, North Korea's opinion is obviously acceptable given how relevant they are to Taiwan (i.e. historical relations, geographic proximity, etc.). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've gone ahead and removed Syria from the "international response" section of the article for the reasons that I outlined above. The source that was used to support Syria's position was state media. In my opinion, it is not Wikipedia's job to literally just spread propaganda with an asterisk* (*this is state media). If it's state media and it's coming from some random third world country, then it probably has no genuine relevance to the situation at hand. Syria trying to be relevant doesn't mean we have to facilitate their agenda. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus:Huh? Why would you arbitrarily consider another government's stance on this matter as "irrelevant"? Because they're "third world"? Because they support the bigger country? This is a globally significant event so any government's stance would be notable, it's not the role of Wikipedia to hide or pre-filter this kind of voices (see WP:DUE), if it is by state media then label it so; most government statements and stances will be issued by state media anyway. You can separate views of countries into categories such as "regional"/"non-regional" or "support"/"neutral"/"oppose" etc and let the reader decide what to do with the information. NoNews! 15:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that this is a globally significant event. That's original research. Indeed, at the moment, I would consider this event to be only regionally significant. And, going by that definition, Syria isn't located in the region, nor is Syria really a world player in geopolitics, at least nowhere comparable to countries like France, the United States, or even nearby (to Syria) Israel. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it this way. If we were to go by your definition of "globally significant event", we would have to list the opinions of around 200 different countries in order to be truly fair. Do you honestly think we need that many opinions in this article? Just a few opinions from the most important players would suffice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. When you say "the bigger country", I presume you mean China. But I have to disagree with that notion, because this incident isn't a two-way dispute. Instead, it's a three-way dispute between China, Taiwan, and the United States. And, while China is definitely a lot bigger than Taiwan, it's not really all that much bigger than the United States. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest merging this with 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, though I'm not sure whether the content should be moved there or here. Either way, the original title wasn't good but the current one is ok. ansh.666 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. That article has issues of its own. Both of these articles are Frankenstein's monsters at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEVENT states that events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. This is an international incident affecting the national security situations of China, Taiwan, and Japan. Reuters believes that this event is likely to have broad impact in Japan, as it serves to bolster public support for a military build-up aimed at defence, which is certainly something that is of international importance. It's also drawn response from ASEAN, which bolsters the fact that these drills are internationally significant. These drills have also resulted in some actions that are extremely rare, such as Chinese fighters and naval vessels crossing the median line between China and Taiwan, while missiles flew over the island. There were also significant disruptions in international shipping and air travel caused by the drills. Additionally, these drills have also been covered by a broad swath of reliable sources in-depth, including CNN, Al Jazeera, The Wall Street Journal, AP, Axios, Politico EU, AFP (via NDTV), The New York Times, RFA, VoA, Taipei Times, The Independent, India dot com, BBC News, NHK, etc. The concerns relating to the old title of the page (Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis) seem to have been resolved by the page move to a much better title (2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan), so any sort of deletion rationale based on the title alone should be WP:DISCARDed. And, while this was done ostensibly in response to Speaker Pelosi's visit to the island, I think that the drills can be covered better in a standalone page than in a section on the page on Pelosi's visit. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will note that WP:DEL-CONTENT states that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. We're in a situation where editing has changed the page from a synth/or title and presentation of events into one where the coverage is largely of the event and it's devoid of any mention of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" as of this revision, so it does look like editing actually can improve the page from here on out. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan I'm just not seeing any reliable sources which actually say that a Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis exists, thats the bare minimum and we don't have it. WP:RS universally frame this as a response to Pelosi's visit not a stand-alone event. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the article in its current form does not include the words "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" even once. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may the title has been justified by subsequent coverage, the Center for Strategic and International Studies[4] for example is now calling it the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Based on the shift in coverage I'm changing my vote to keep and restore to its original name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more of a WP:TOOSOON than CRYSTAL but the SYNTH is fairly clear. Most of the sources and article is about Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit or prior events with no mention of the August military exercises - including nearly all the sources in the Escalation of tensions and International response sections. From a quick count a third of all sources are from before 2 August and even more are not about the military exercises. I'd happily support a merge with Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit of which this article is a WP:POVFORK. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: Do you believe that the fifteen sources that I listed in my comment above fail to significantly cover the topic of the August military exercises? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Pelosi's Taiwan Visit. The events in this article are not notable enough at the moment to have its own wikipedia article. The conflict may warrant their own article if things escalate but not now. Evercool1 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep the information here is encyclopedia worthy for it's notability and relevance. Perhaps for now it could be merged until it can be looked at in retrospect RFZYNSPYtalk 00:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The GNG has been far and away surpassed here, I don't see the issues with SYNTH. "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis" was not an appropriate title, but since the page has been moved that vacates all the reasonable SYNTH and poor sourcing concerns. I also oppose a merge to 2022 US Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan, since that article is already very bloated and doesn't need the detailed day-by-day military analysis that is bound to spring up here. The two are also separate events with separate coverage; the military exercises may have been caused by Pelosi's visit, but she's already long gone. Maybe (and this part is TOOSOON) if it is determined by RSes at some point in the future that this is a "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis", then all the different parts can be merged into such an article, but until then I see such merges as SYNTH and TOOSOON. Toadspike (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Crystal element plays in here because news outlets are describing this altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than as a full-fledged fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. With that being said, the info is definitely notable enough to remain as a standalone article, but we just have to be very careful about how we classify the information until further developments are made in the real world. Personally, I'm not even sure that I agree with the way that this article seems to almost be presented as a direct military conflict (like a skirmish or a battle). So far, no actual fighting has taken place. It's all "sabre-rattling" at the moment, albeit with a blockade and military exercises by China against Taiwan thrown in. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo Nautilus, not once in the whole article since the move is "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" used. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they still present the altercation as a military conflict with that info-box. This is a detail that I disagree with since I don't think the altercation qualifies as a military conflict at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No Merge. The topic is notable enough to have its own article. The Pelosi visit is notable enough on its own to also have it's own article. Both articles are related and will have wikilink in each other. EyeTruth (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep Keep it and merged it with the page we got now. As there is some news outlets that starts to coin it as crisis.
As of August 6th 2022, these four news outlets has coin the recent event as crisis. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the articles that you linked seem to be describing the altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than a definitive fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Modify - UPDATE: I've changed my vote from "Delete (Modify)" to "Keep and Modify". The info is definitely notable, there's no question about it. The main issue was with the way that the information was being presented. Clearly, that issue has been fixed in large part by changing the title. HOWEVER, I also believe that the info-box is still problematic because it presents this altercation as a military conflict even though no actual fighting has taken place yet. For now, the altercation can only be described as "sabre-rattling", albeit with an illegal naval blockade by China around Taiwan thrown in. For now, it is a case of CRYSTAL to regard this as an actual military conflict, although the situation on the ground may change in the coming days. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is changed to different content. The event seems notable given the coverage passes WP:GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the current article depicts the altercation/incident as a conflict because it uses the conflict info-box. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The PRC military has surrounded Taiwan ROC and has been blocking ROC Taiwan trade and resources. This is not the same fiasco as the 1950s and 60s Taiwan Strait Crises. This event may actually precipitate in President Xi annexing Taiwan. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but considering people have already been linking this event with how the Ukraine-Russia conflict precipitated, someone had to say it. It's implied. The article is notable simply because it is an ongoing, important event. The article should not be deleted. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2022 (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.