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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special state-to-state relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article does not establish notability; it seems to simply be a certain prominant figure's description of PRC-ROC relations. Although it is used on numerous pages (59, including project, talk and user pages), most cases in encyclopedia articles are because of its inclusion in the transcluded "Cross-strait relations" template. The remainder merely establish that a Taiwanese figure used the term and the Chinese didn't like it. Certainly the topic behind it does not seem separate from cross-strait relations and I don't believe notability could be established for this particular term alone. I don't think a redir is appropriate because it doesn't seem to be a "term of art". —Felix the Cassowary 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I forgot that I probably should point out that the article has existed in largely is current form for five-plus years and has had a "notability" template on it for over a year. Despite being in the template, no-one has seen fit even to edit it the slightest in that period. (Aside from deletion-related edits.) —Felix the Cassowary 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my own nom. —Felix the Cassowary 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia used to take just about anything, and this 2005 contribution is a good example, about a phrase that didn't catch on. You wouldn't know it from the title, nor from the title of the article where it might rate a mention, Cross-Strait relations. Luckily, the common sense title China-Taiwan Relations is a redirect to the "let's not offend Beijing" alternative. Mandsford 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Scratching my head on how to rescue this and can't come up with anything. No apparent defenders. "A phrase that didn't catch on" sort of says it all. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at most could be a few words in the Lee Teng-hui article. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't seem to be in wide usage by anyone in this dispute. Per those above, it could be mentioned briefly in some other article.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2011 (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.