Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo Cold War


 * 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  - Many of the eight Keeps were of the opinion that the subject is notable and either sourced or sourcable, but several were contingent upon (or assumed a Keep result from) the AfD for New Cold War. The ten Delete opinions were centred on lack of sources, original research, and non-notability, or pointed to use of the term by only one author (Joseph Stroup). The article's sources either did not include the term (implying original research) or were written by Stroup, who does not appear to be individually notable. Given the lack of sources actually presented, and the result of the New Cold War AfD, I must conclude that this term is a neologism which has not achieved wide enough usage to be covered by a Wikipedia article, and that there are insufficient independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject matter to demonstrate notability or provide verifiable source material for an encyclopaedic article. I note that one editor has kept a copy of the article; I will provide a copy in user space to any editor who wishes to research a similar article (presumably at another title). S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neo Cold War

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Non-notable neologism with no definitive meaning or substantive referent in scholarly literature.  Subset of the equally problematic New Cold War. csloat (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC) csloat
 * Comment. Some of the conversation at the deletion discussion for New Cold War may be helpful here.  There was also a merge discussion initiated prior to this deletion nomination at Talk:Neo Cold War.    user:j    (aka justen)   16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into New Cold War (assuming that article is kept). There's some useful information here, but it seems to be mainly another take on the 'New Cold War' thesis rather than a different subject, and there's no need for two articles on the same topic. Terraxos (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you identify the "useful information" here that would be directly relevant to the "new Cold War" article if that one is kept? csloat (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Now that the New Cold War article has been deleted, it seems there is even less reason to keep this one.  Should there be a move to "speedy" delete? csloat (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Under which criteria?   user:j    (aka justen)   23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno - that's why I asked. You going to file an AN/I about that too?  (I kid...) csloat (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good one. I don't know that any of the criteria for speedy deletion really apply here, which is why I asked (in case there's an angle I'm missing).    user:j    (aka justen)   02:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know either; chances are my question is completely misguided. csloat (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The arguments for deletion of "New Cold War" apply here, but in addition none of the footnoted references actually contain the term, which makes the entire article look like a WP:SYNTH violation. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. Scholar Google strongly suggests that this is the work of one author, who is only cited by one other author. A merge into Joseph Stroupe would meet these concerns if he were notable; but I doubt he is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the same thing from New Cold War. That was delete, so should this one too. Delete per neologism. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as sourced and notable subject. The is not a recreation of article New Cold War, as one can see from comparison of the articles.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and perhaps rename later. However this is a misguided nomination until matters are not resolved with New Cold War possible merges/renames for example can't be examined properly right now. Hobartimus (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The discussion of New Cold War is over, and all issues have been resolved. The result was delete; there are no possible merges or renames left (nor is it possible to "compare articles" as the editor before you claims) as the material is gone (with good reason).  I have no problem with merging this article to New Cold War as long as that means it disappears into /dev/null as the New Cold War article did. csloat (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, we had a week long discussion about that article, that should be enough. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ph33rs that something is going very very wrong indeed, there seems to be a wave of censorship on articles following current events which shall remain nameless because we cannot talk about them without being censored, but perhaps this wave should stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.13 (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Barring the result of the deletion review of New Cold War. If the decision to delete that article is overturned then this article should be merged with it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I must remind editors that this is an encyclopedia and not a website that keeps track of every single term and neologism coined by authors in history. If all it takes is a published book, than one could publish a book coining the term Neo Hot War or Warm War and then we would have an article about it. Delete per WP:NEO. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Neologism backed by self-created biased material (ie maps) and OR. Asterion talk 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisting note: Relisting to give us some time until Deletion review concludes.  Sandstein   17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Hobartimus. CENSEI (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the existence of the Neo Cold War or New Cold War is an undeniable fact. It needs to be updated to include recent confirming events such as the current Caucasus crisis.--tequendamia (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just a neologism. There should be plenty of articles on real "cold", "warm", and "hot" conflicts going on. If it is about Russian-American relations then call the article that. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are certain users who, despite going through the official movements, are very keen to suppress certain information from Wikipedia. The suppression of talk on New/new/neo/Neo Cold War appears to stem from disagreements over the Ossetian crisis. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no basis whatsoever for deleting this article. If the material from New Cold War (rapidly deleted, no doubt to avoid merge, which was at the time under discussion) would be merged or used to strengthen this article, there would be no question of deleting it whatsoever.
 * Delete few google hits (3500, as compared to say, new cold war, with over 2 million). Many of the hits describes a "cold war" with the US vs the rest of the world. Article is mostly single sourced to Joseph Stroup, the non-Stroup sources do not use "neo cold war". 70.55.85.143 (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The New Cold War article was rapidly deleted, despite a pending merge consensus. Of course this article cannot stand on its own, having received far less attention than the former. Unfortunately the current crisis in Georgia has affected a few too many people to allow these things to be dealt with properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourced, notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since deletion review has led to an endorsement this article will likely be deleted. I've put a copy in my userspace for when the article on New Cold War is recreated so it cane be included there.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not re-create appropriately deleted articles, especially when the deletion review led to a clear endorsement. csloat (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. TDA is free to do whatever he pleases, especially if it is keeping a copy of the article for references purposes. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say he shouldn't do that, but I do think it would be inappropriate to re-create a deleted article especially after a deletion review. That is true whatever nonsense one wants to keep in one's home page.  It was his comment "when the article on New Cold War is recreated" that I was reacting to, not his announcement that he is going to put his original research on his user page.  But of course, he's free to do whatever he wants, that goes without saying. csloat (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable concept, could be better sourced, but that's not a reason to delete.    user:j    (aka justen)   03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Articles for deletion/New Cold War and Deletion review/Log/2008 August 23. Khoikhoi 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, non-notable and poorly-sourced. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2008 (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.