Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New 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; while supporters of the article have pointed out a number of current media uses of the phrase in the media and it use in a number of book titles, the fact is the phrase is semantically transparent. This isn't a New Cold War of set meaning (even as a neologism), but several allusions or parallels drawn to new Cold Wars. As it stands, the article is an interpretation of current usage and unsurmountably runs afoul of WP:OR. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New Cold War

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

Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Avoid neologisms. This article is doing a disservice to the history of the 20th Century. Just because some TV pundits and journalists are trowing this expression around trumpeting this expression, this article is certifying that a New Cold War exists between Russia and USA. This term is being used because it is catchy but it is still a undefined and unrecognized neologism.

To call the US-Russia war of words over the South Ossetian conflict as a full blown Cold War is premature at best, Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTCRYSTAL. This article suffers from the same problem as the Second dot-com bubble. Such a serious conflict should be unquestionable, an unanimity among historians and clearly defined. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as neologism. Maybe someday this will be an actual term worthy of an article, but it is hardly in general use. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The article is approaching a dozen verifiable and reliable sources (and could easily hold many more) defining the term and addressing the topic, none of which involve television pundits as far as I know.  At least two published books carry the same name and discuss the topic.  To address your "neologism" concern and concerns of recentism, please define what you personally consider to be "new."  Take a look at a Google News Archive search for the term.  Prominent coverage of the topic goes back to at least 2003, with a number of notable, verifiable, reliable sourced articles from 1999 and earlier, as well.  As to your personal point of view on the topic, it's not a topic for discussion here.  And this isn't the particular place for you to bring up any  problems you may have with Second dot-com bubble.    user:j    (aka justen)   02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:J is the article's author. "The article states that "'New Cold War' is a term used to describe a perceived rekindling of conflict." That's a clear violation of both WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Avoid neologisms. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Well referenced and references come from three nations' news organizations. Problems brought up such as referencing issues have been handled swiftly. Could be a great article if given a chance. LA (T) @ 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable neologism almost exclusively referenced from recent media sources. 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Delete "New Cold War" means too many different things to different people. A strong notable contender for this article would be the book "New Cold War" publ 1970 auth "Edward Crankshaw" (many many google hits, its even on googlebooks) which speaks of a "new" cold war between Moscow and Pekin. I just altered my "vote" to Strong Delete Annette46 (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The neologism does not seem to be notable. However the topic of Russian-American relations in the 21st Century is, and the expression could be mentioned there. (p.s. "World War Four" gets some use too.)Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Neologism is not well enough established. Someday, we may all agree that there is a new cold war, but that is by no means certain yet.  Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. lk (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I've seen the term "new cold war" or "revived cold war" in an uncountable number of both western and English-Russian media, as well as on political talk shows etc.. It's well sourced and notable, it should stay. LokiiT (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this term is frequently used to describe a future US-China "cold war", which is completely different from a US-Russia one. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This will be a major article given some time, also per and per  clearly notable. Hobartimus (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It is clear that, despite a considerable cooling off in international politics over the course of the 90s, the trend has been reversed and a New Cold War is very much alive and well. While the article goes a bit far in suggesting the SCO and CSTO are the red to NATO's blue, there is notable coverage of the "New Cold War". Do a google search. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - You'd have to have had your head in a bucket not to notice the international tension in the past fortnight. But that's not the point. The point is whether there are sufficient reliable sources to suggest that the term 'New Cold War' is an accepted description of that situation. I don't think so, personally. Not that long ago, most usage of the term related to relations between China and various other nations. I'm just not sure that, as presented, the term is notable enough. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - such things as "cold war" are the terms used by historians to label roughly some time periods on the grounds of a consensus among the academicians, usually many years after the period has started. Mass-media labeling does not apply. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's compare:
 * Cold War - Soviet Union by force changes the regimes on the occupied territories to a communist ones. Now: Russia has market economy and Russian forces stationed in Georgia in the days of the Rose Revolution did nothing to prevent the power change.
 * Cold War - Soviet Block citizens are prohibited from leaving the Soviet sphere of influence. Now: Russia witnessed a huge surge in the international tourism of its citizens.
 * Cold War - wars-by-proxy in Korea and Vietnam, with each side trying to drastically change the economic and social ways of the country. Now: no radical changes, no ideological fight. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Transwiki and delete This is (as, to its credit, the article says) "term used to describe the perceived..." etc. It belongs on Wiktionary, not here, until it either acquires an actual (non-WP:CRYSTAL) subject, or at a minimum a recognized movement distinct from neoconservatism. The only substance here is two books with this title, heirs to a long-standing tradition of political prophecy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * support - I support Septentrionalis' proposal. That would be a fair compromise. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Upgraded per cssloat's evidence and the dubious conduct of this AfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions.   —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Much well-sourced encyclopedic information here; plenty of sources to show that it's not "just" a neologism. Maybe would be better renamed or merged into a more comprehensive article at some point in the future, but deletion is way over the top.--Kotniski (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plenty? What? I see two books by MacKinnon and Lucas, and a bunch of headline writers who have found "new Cold War", usually so capped, convenient. There isn't even evidence of common ideas here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This was one of the comments removed by the principal author, j. I would still like an answer.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's clearly been called a New Cold War before this, which suggest the article should be redone and possibly modified to include other uses such as that in relation to China or Iran. All in the term does have a lot of usage in relation to Russia, seemingly more than in relation to other countries, and so there is very good reason for keeping it. None of the Wikipedia policies pointed out have any relevance here. This isn't making a prediction of the future and it's not really a neologism. In general this article meets all the needed requirements for an article and I expect, even without consideration of historical mentions of a New Cold War, the current situation will be increasingly called a New Cold War, even if I personally disagree with that characterization. Even if this is later given some different name the fact this term has been so widely used to describe the existing state of affairs is of notable importance to have an article on.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Neologism.  And it's been used in multiple other instances, such as to describe the rise of religious nationalism.  A wikipedia article about the phrase "new cold war" would have to include multiple instances of its usage, not just the one described here.  Besides, this is mostly a WP:SYN violation. csloat (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Copied from talk page per comments there: Just looking at google books, I find the following titles:
 * The New Cold War: 1970 book referring to the Sino-Soviet conflict.
 * The New Cold War?: 1994 book describing the rise of religious fundamentalism and nationalism
 * Towards a New Cold War: 1982 book about U.S. military adventurism and support for dictators in the Middle East and East Timor
 * The New Cold War: 2007 book on the failure of democratization in Russia (this one seems the only book even tangentially related to the topic of the article as it is)
 * Reagan and the World: Imperial Policy in the New Cold War: 1984 book about the failure of the Reagan Administration's military policies
 * Images of the Enemy: Reporting the New Cold War: 1988 book about images of the Soviet Union in US media
 * El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War: 1987 book about U.S. intervention in Central America
 * The Neutral Democracies and the New Cold War: 1987 book about neutrality during the cold war
 * Dead Ends: American Foreign Policy in the New Cold War: 1983 book about the failure of US adventurism
 * China and the United States: A New Cold War History: 1988 book about Sino-US conflict


 * Those are just books with "New Cold War" in the title. There are hundreds of scholarly articles and books using this phrase going back to the 1970s, and startlingly few of them use the phrase the way it is used in this article.  So those advocating "keep" must indicate if they are willing to support an article with radically different content (all the stuff about Georgia shortened to a single paragraph, and all these other uses highlighted as well), or whether they wish to merge whatever content is here into South Ossetian war. csloat (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is a neologism, but it's not our neologism -- it's already being discussed, and as referenced there are two books on the subject. I think many of the arguments for deletion here are attempts to whitewash Russia, similar to what we're seeing at 2008 South Ossetia war, International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war, and so on (though it's worse on their talk pages, now that the articles are semi-protected and no longer exposed to anonymous IPs). Moreover, I do not think that User:EconomistBR, who created this proposal, can be relied on to be objective on this matter. He claimed that this article was an op-ed, despite the plain "News" on the top of it -- because agreeing with Human Rights Watch that the Russians' militias are burning and looting was unfriendly to Russia. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as ill-defined neologism. I actually own both the Mackinnon and Lucas books and while they have the same title they are about very different subjects.  Mackinnon's book is about the color revolutions (he wanted to name it "Revolution Inc" but was shot down by his publisher), while Lucas is an "old" Cold War theoretician who never stopped thinking of Russia as an evil empire.  And while both books discuss East-West energy politics (and the current conflict with Ossetia also involves East-West energy politics), THAT subject could just as easily fall under the neologism of "new great game" --   Katsam (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete On above grounds. such a war does not exist, the map is made of Bs alliances with Nato being the only one that truely is realistic. When such a thing as a NCW start up, make the article, until then, its speculation and crystaling. --Jakezing (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Discussion up to this point in the process has been moved to the talk page for this nomination. Please consider consulting and continuing lengthy discussion there. user:j   (aka justen)   03:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, most, but not all, of the discussion has been restored. The closing admin should read it in full; j has pruned a substantial amount of discussion adverse to his own position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot more strongly disagree with your statement. I pruned nothing.  I moved the entirety of the discussion leading up to the timestamp above to the talk page.  The vast majority of that discussion were my own responses to !votes.  Discussion has continued there since on other matters.  If you feel I have, in any way refactored this discussion to my own benefit, please correct.    user:j    (aka justen)   16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A response to this message to j ' s talk page. I find it very difficult to consider this massive removal as compatible with good faith; but if it is restored, I will attempt to find some way to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The Cat is out of the Bag already with 507,000 Results for "New Cold War" in Google search. I don't see why we shouldn't have a piece about such phenomenon in Wikipedia than. Besides, the concept of Cold War is not a neologism by itself, so adding a new qualifier as per media reports doesn't make for a whole lot of difference. User:J makes a few other, similarly good points in this discussion (see above). --Poeticbent talk  02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: the fact that there are half a million hits only goes to prove the point -- most of those hits do not refer to the current crisis and in fact refer to many different things.  So your vote, based on your rationale, should be "delete" or "merge" with other articles about other "new cold wars." csloat (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Once again an AfD is being flooded with ridiculous delete arguments. There is no crystal-balling in the article and the subject is not speculative or predictive. It's simply noting an idea which is being discussed with increasing frequency in relation to U.S.-Russian relations. Again this satisfies all the necessary criteria for inclusion as an article and does not violate any Wikipedia policy. This is for all intents and purposes an article in need of improvement, not deleting.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw AfD The evidence presented by csloat proves that this term is plenty notable enough for an article, and should be expanded to include all usages that the term has enjoyed in the past few decades. As I state on the talk page, deletion is clearly not the answer. This AfD should be withdrawn, and collaboration should take place on the talk page to expand this article fully. Glass  Cobra  06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be more than willing to work with other editors to expand the article to recognize all verifiably notable uses of the term, and the research that User:Commodore Sloat has brought up will be extremely helpful to that end.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys don't get it, do you? First, you can't withdraw an AfD someone else started.  Second, the fat that there are so many different and totally incompatible uses for this neologism shows it is not notable as used in this article.  If you want to have a short article stating that "new cold war" is a neologism that has occasionally been used for topics as diverse as the sino-soviet split, the sino-US tensions, American imperial ambitions in indochina, US intervention in central America, and religious nationalism in Sri Lanka, then perhaps that would be fine but most of the stuff here would be deleted except for a sentence or two about its current use with regard to Georgia.  And then we would AfD it as too vague and non-notable for Wikipedia.  Better to kill it off now. csloat (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow - GlassCobra, what on earth makes you think you can close someone else's AfD? I propose, though, in light of Commodore Sloat's excellent compilation of sources, that there's some argument for replacing the page with a detailed disambiguation page, pointing people to the various conflicts which this term has been applied to. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A good idea, although most of the links from it may be links to sections of articles, rather than whole ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, pardon? I'm not making anyone do anything; my !vote and suggestion to the nominator was to withdraw this AfD so that proper discussion could take place to improve the article, instead of this pointless bickering here. Glass  Cobra  17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Having an article on something is not equivalent to asserting its existence (we have articles on unicorns, Santa and so on), so most of the reasons given in the nomination are invalid.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The preceding comment was moved from above by the nominator.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think this neologism passes WP:NEO. Seems to be a non-notable term coined by few media groups.--  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:NEO. The two key reasons that guideline (not policy) provides for avoiding articles on neologisms are to avoid "articles simply attempting to define a neologism" and to avoid non-reliable, non-verifiable original research.  Respectfully, I think this article goes further than merely sourcing a definition for the term, and I believe there is a significant amount of reliable, verifiable research that address the second concern.  Just because you believe a term is a neologism doesn't mean it should be deleted; WP:NEO outlines two key specific reasons for deletion, and New Cold War is not failing under either.    user:j    (aka justen)   12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Some more research would suggest that it's not just simply neologism as I thought, but my opinion that this term is merely used by media pundits to sell books stands. Many books use the term, but nearly none of them use it the same way, because it's just publicity. I wouldn't be adverse to some information to be merged into other articles, however. I just disagree that this term is notable enough for inclusion. So, I'm changing my reason, but keeping my original vote.--  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, at the very least, this article should be renamed to a less sensational title. However, even if this is done, it appears to have very little content that does not fit better in the articles about the Georgia/Russia war or Russia–United States relations. It could very easily end up as a POV fork, if it is not already one. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep & move to Post cold war shift in military and trade policy or something like that. Subject notable but too complex to simply name it after a book. The tensions started already before the fall of Soviet Union during Gulf War I and they last until now - conflict in Ossetia, tensions in Georgia are the best example. It's a stub for now but it may expand to 100kB and over. greg park avenue (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, this article is an aggregation of news sources about a specific conflict, not a generalized discussion of a larger competition between powers. There isn't a "new cold war" as such, in spite of the media's attempts to define it as such. I agree that academics should be the ones to define "New Cold War" and not media sources, since the media's focus is readership, catchy phrases, clever headlines and the like. Academics have less to gain through such tactics, and that isn't their primary goal anyway. Also, the players in the conflict should have some influence in what the conflict is called, as they did in the Cold War. Hires an editor (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some policy supporting your belief that Wikipedia should place greater value on sources from historians and lesser value on sources from the media? If it's notable, verifiable, and cites reliable sources, our job isn't to determine the accuracy of the assertions from those sources.    user:j    (aka justen)   15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability has a novel phrasing: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. But the intent remains: journals and university presses are more reliable than textbooks, which are more reliable than other books, which are more reliable than newspapers. As WP:V goes on to explain, As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Op-ed columns score low on the rule of thumb, daily newspaper reporting (by the constraints under which it exists) not much higher. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. The New Cold War article, a really serious dangerous conflict were it true, is based entirely on "daily newspaper reporting", we basically invented this new conflict. Nowhere but in Wikipedia is this conflict official, defined and recognized.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Coatrack, WP:NEO and WP:CRYSTAL. Meaningful text can be merged into Edward Lucas (journalist) and Georgian-Ossetian_conflict articles.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. While people might not agree with the content of the article, the concept of a New Cold War is widely documented. Concerns are and have been expressed over what could be construed as an existing, impending or inevitable "New Cold War". Wikipedia has articles on issues far more trivial and nonsensical than this one. Like the Hampster Dance for example. "Hampster Dance" gets 78,900 hits on google, and no coverage by peer reviewed sources, while "New Cold War" gets 492,000 hits, including a variety of newspaper and journal articles, books, and an article in Time magazine on how to avoid one. The fact that it is being talked about (especially in Time) surely is worthy of some coverage.
 * The fact that there are so many hits for 'Hampster Dance' doesn't mean that the word is actually spelled that way, instead of Hamster. Erroneous reporting is no guarantee of notability, or even existence. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you look up Hamster Dance on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not widely documented at all, this war only exists in Wikipedia. No history book will mention it. And that's the big problem, we are portraing this "New Cold War" as a certified historical fact, comparable to the first Cold War.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys mostly argue validity of the term (the TITLE of the article), not the SUBJECT of the article, which is thoroughly notable. The proper place to do it is RM though, not AfD. See Talk:New_Cold_War greg park avenue (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article consists of a summary of some speculative journalism on the 2008 South Ossetia war and a single paragraph on two books, which have little to do with it and (apparently) nothing much to do with each other. If the subject is not the phrase, in which case the article belongs on Wiktionary, what is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article isn't representing it as a historical fact. The dispute is real, no doubt about that, and the article is clearly referring to more than the Russia-Georgia conflict. It references other major disputes like the missile defense system, Ukraine, the expulsion of foreign businesses, in addition to the situation in Georgia. Many articles and books are calling this state of affairs between Russia and the U.S. as a New Cold War with countless more suggesting one is on the way. This is clearly a notable enough topic to have an article on it. If anything your arguments suggest there should be tweaking of the article, not outright deletion. You're focusing a lot on the title and some details of the article, ignoring everything else.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a neologism; it, along with "neo-Cold War" has been in wide international relations scholarly literature for many years. Also, Google currently reports 522,000 hits for "new Cold War". The content of the article as it currently stands may or may not be bad, but that is irrelevant &mdash; if the current content is bad, the solution is a rewrite, not a deletion. Deletion is for cases where the topic is inherently non-encyclopedic; in this case, the topic itself is encyclopedic; it is just the current presentation that is questionable, but that is what is great about Wikipedia: presentation can be edited/fixed/improved. Yes, there are many sharply differing scholarly perspectives on what "new Cold War" means &mdash; but that applies to lots of terms; Wikipedia addresses this by addressing many perspectives, per the NPOV policy ("democracy" obviously means something very different to, for instance, the governments of the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the term "democracy"), so the fact that there is scholarly disagreement about what "new Cold War" means is not in itself a reason to delete the article. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The claim that it is a concept in international relations scholarly literature is completely false. Please cite a single peer-reviewed study of the concept that treats it as an actual concept (and not as a sensational neologism).  The half million google hits are talking about half million different things as I have noted above; that only goes to further establish that there is no real referent to this term. csloat (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. An article more worthy of being listed on AFD than new Cold War is neo Cold War, which is a less commonly used term that most IR scholars use interchangeably with "new Cold War" and should be merged into new Cold War. —Lowellian (reply) 04:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, merge and then delete both. csloat (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL there are good chanses that the curent crysises with the name will be forgotten in a couple of years Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per crystal, neo, and csloat. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. You cant denie it, this term is widely used. Two countries, same zones of interest, try avoiding a face to face conflict, that's a cold war. And again, the most important: This term is already widely used, it would be realy... weird to delete this article. In modern geopolitical literature, anyway, I meet this term alot.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostan1 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 August 2008
 * Comment I thought anon ips were not allowed to participate in AfDs? As well as any account that has not been used for a certain number of edits? csloat (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an anon; it was User:Kostan1; he or she just didn't sign his or her username. —Lowellian (reply) 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Csloat, see Articles for deletion: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion." Glass  Cobra  17:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Condoleeza Rice dismisses claims of a new cold war - May 2007 - "New Cold War", therefore, is not a term exclusively pertaining to the current Georgian Conflict. Also, that vote wasn't me. So I removed the tag (I can spell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per CopperKettle and csloat. — eon, 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable and sourced subject, as clear from the wide coverage in literature (see links by csloat above). If it has several slightly different meanings, this should be simply explained in the article.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The several meanings are vastly different. They disagree about the countries involved to the point that no single country is involved in all of the alleged "new cold wars".  There is no way to write a single coherent article about all the different meanings.  The suggestion to make this a dab page, pointing in some cases to sections of longer articles, has merit. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced and notable. smooth0707  (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I modified the intro of the article to provide a look at how I think this article should be constructed. I believe deletion is an overreaction and simple editing will suffice. The talk of a new cold war, second cold war, or cold war II is prevalent enough to have an article on it. However, it should also take note of the other uses. As the most significant usage relates to Russia and China with references to other minor or less associated with the term, the intro mentions only Russia and China, but acknowledges some variations on the concept. I think this article should mention some of the thoughts on a cold war between the U.S. and China, but deal mostly with what it is more often used for, the situation between the U.S. and Russia. It is a topic of sufficient scholarly and political interest to have an article, but with some of the changes I've mentioned.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: a good attempt but not good enough to save this article imho... I think if we do wind up having to keep it we need to look at a disambiguation page like that suggested by AlexTiefling above. csloat (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I support all three proposals as a form of compromise:


 * -AlexTiefling's proposal to make New Cold War a disambiguation page.
 * -greg park avenue's proposal to move the page to a less controversial title.
 * -Septentrionalis' proposal to Transwiki the article.


 * I wished other editors opined on them. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * O'K. The subject is notable enough to be described in several articles linked from the proposed disambig. page. Thus, the deletion is out of question. So, let's simply keep this article and discuss what exactly new pages on the subject should be created, including the disambig. one. Perhaps this article should be renamed, but this is unrelated to the AfD procedure.Biophys (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "This subject" doesn't exist. There are multiple subjects, and we already have articles about those subjects all over wikipedia.  I'm not opposed to a disambiguation page with this title, but there are no "new pages" that need to be created here. csloat (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * @Biophys
 * This is ridiculous, why do some people see a compromise offer as a sign of weakness? I am open for compromises because I am flexible not because I changed my views.
 * If the offer of compromise continues to be seen as a sign of weakness I will withdraw it, wait this Russia-US crisis die down and renominate the New Cold War article for deletion.


 * It would be a mistake if the keepers see a possible "no-consensus" result as a victory, that's why I advise the keepers to look for a compromise and address the concerns of csloat, Septentrionalis, Robert A.West, Darth_Mike, CopperKettle, Annette46 and many others.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 14:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (←) I agree with your assertion here that it does appear that there is no consensus for delete, and if the result of this deletion discussion is that the article should not be deleted, then I would welcome working with you and other editors to improve the article. Once this discussion is closed, if you believe the article should be moved, I would suggest you try to build a consensus on the talk page for the article and request a move once you believe you have found a consensus.    user:j    (aka justen)   15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the strength of the arguments will carry the day - it's up to an admin, of course, but I think there's enough of a consensus to delete and that the arguments for deletion are strong enough that they will ultimately outweigh the opposition, no matter how shrill. In either case, it should be a disambiguation page rather than what it is now -- I will get started on that right away. csloat (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not proposing to delete the article or its content outside of this process.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all; just to change it to a disambig page as described above. It is done, please add to it if there are other pages it should point to.  Of course, the history is there if the consensus is that it should be something else. csloat (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which other title would be "less controversial"? What other articles this proposed disambig. page should be linked to? Would the current article be one of the links?  But this AfD discussion is not an appropriate forum to discuss such content issues. So, the article should be kept and improved.Biophys (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see what a disambig page would look like if you look at the history of the article; I got things started there but feel free to add links to other appropriate articles. As for a less controversial title for the content that is currently in the article, I suggest 2008 South Ossetia war. csloat (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. There was no consensus for turning the page into a disambiguation.  Commodore Sloat's edit here to the article is a de facto deletion outside of this process.    user:j    (aka justen)   16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been undone; at least we now have the history so we can go back to the disambig page if the article is not deleted. No worries. csloat (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have brought up this situation at the administrators' noticeboard.    user:j    (aka justen)   16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste administrators' time with phony reports about non-issues. There is no "situation" requiring administrator intervention here.  You are blowing things out of proportion; try to deal with the issues at hand.  Thanks! csloat (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying to end run this deletion discussion by deleting the content of the article out of process is not acceptable. Listing the facts at the administrators' noticeboard is not "blowing things out of proportion," it's an attempt to make sure things, indeed, do not "blow out of proportion."
 * Oh please. I was not trying to "end run" anything.  My actions were transparent, and I declared clearly what I was doing every step of the way, and did so in a civil manner.  You are wasting administrators' time with a phony report; such actions should not be without sanction. csloat (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Csloat, your "at least we now have the history so we can go back to the disambig page if the article is not deleted" comment does indeed seem to strongly suggest that you intend to circumvent the process and gut the article if the discussion does not end in your favor, which is extremely inappropriate. Glass  Cobra  17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? There is nothing inappropriate about creating a disambiguation page when there is ambiguity about which one of multiple topics a title refers to; that is true whether or not there is a discussion about deleting an article.  Nobody is talking about "gutting" anything; I find your suggestion (and the implicit chastisement for presumed future actions) to be entirely inappropriate and uncivil. csloat (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe this article should help explain the different circumstances in which the term is used and refer readers to other related topics, nesting and sectioning the article, and utilizing is the way to accomplish that, should this discussion result in the article being kept.    user:j    (aka justen)   20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not interested in your opinion about how to do things on Wikipedia, since you consider AN/I the most appropriate place to begin a discussion of disambiguation. csloat (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is highly unkind of you to say, csloat, considering you just accused me of being uncivil for some percieved slight that I did not make at all. I completely agree with J's points, though, just as I've been stating since the beginning of this AfD: deletion is not the answer. Glass  Cobra  20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was also "highly unkind" of J to run to AN/I and try to get me disciplined based on a twisted misreading of something I wrote. I am trying to be helpful to this discussion; I actually spent a good bit of time researching the term "new cold war" and explaining its various uses, and then I tried to show what we could do in terms of a disambiguity page (as has been supported by several people on both sides of this discussion), and as thanks I find myself reported to administrators for some phony infraction.  It's a bit infuriating, as you can imagine, yet I am keeping my cool throughout, while having my motives lambasted by you and J.  It is totally uncivil of both of you, and you should frankly be ashamed of yourselves.  As for your final point about deletion -- that is your opinion, which is all well and good -- just place your vote of "keep" and stop insulting fellow editors.  Thank you. csloat (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Ashamed of ourselves for debating to keep an article that we feel is worthy of inclusion? I think not. I have already placed my !vote in this AfD, and it has not changed: deletion is not the answer, this AfD should be closed, and proper discussion should take place on the talk page. How do you not see that you making the page into a disambiguation is actually furthering that goal? The version of this page that J and I have envisioned is essentially a glorified version of the disambiguation that you created; simply with more detail. I have insulted no one in this discussion, nor have I questioned anyone's motives. Please do not take this personally. Glass  Cobra  21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. There is nothing wrong with voting "keep" if that's the way you feel.  That's not the issue here at all; the issue was personal attacks on my good faith when I trying to collaborate with you, not have a war with you.  I am not opposed to "glorifying" the disambiguation page if that is your goal, but we need to start somewhere, and that's what I tried to do.  For that I got attacked and J tried to get me blocked. csloat (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:CRYSTAL; discovered AfD via ANI. Coldmachine Talk 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, split, and disambiguate probably based on this scheme. The article lead establishes that the term "New Cold War" has been used for multiple different subjects. There is no reason to try to fit different subjects under one title, when we have perfectly good mechanisms in place for covering each topic separately.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Much well-sourced encyclopedic information here; plenty of sources to show that it's not "just" a neologism. Maybe would be better renamed or merged into a more comprehensive article at some point in the future, but deletion is way over the top.-- WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete idiotic Neologism used by right wing alarmist talking heads to amp fears of a second real Cold War. Further, the article's use of weasel words 'perceived as' and so on, betrays the lack of strong footing for the concept. If/when we break diplomatic ties to Russia and its associated former soviet allies, we can revisit the article, but until then there's little reality to the fearmongering. ThuranX (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep "Cold War" was itself a neologism in the past, but now is so widely used that it is considered landscape of the 20th century. I'm not all that convinced that the old cold war ever ended, just a cease fire for some shuffling around. Tangurena (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This term is being using by all the major, 'broad sheet' news papers and on radio and TV news reports to describe the cooling in relations between NATO and Russia. Many of us might not like this change in world events, but the term is in wide circulation. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The term was being used to describe the situation in Georgia as early as 2004 Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, if it's been used by all the major broadsheet newspapers, can you find me an example from even one of the following, outside an op-ed column? The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Times, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Dagens Nyheter, or the Straits Times? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation in a year or so Too early to see if this thing with Georgia is the start of a trend or not. I'd also like to caution users in this AFD to maintain civility-- comments such as 'idiotic Neologism used by right wing alarmist talking heads' do nothing but inflame the debate. Jtrainor (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment While a number of newspapers use the term in the negative, 'no new cold war' that is still the term being used. The different meanings could be added to the page. Also google finds hundreds of hits in the World News section, including the newspapers you requested,   I could have linked more. Even if mentioned in an Editorial this in no way devalues the wikip page as it shows usage. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Stupid, yet notable. Stupid isn't a deletion criteria. Notability wins. rootology  ( T ) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain how its notable, again? --10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are enough references already to show that this is a notable term, whether it's an appropriate one or not. While I appreciate the neologism concerns, comparisons to the Cold War have been made in the media several times over the last several years, not just in the past two weeks. The article needs to be carefully written to ensure that it makes clear that this is a modern, political term rather than an academic, historical one, and that the comparison is far from universally accepted; but I think the concept of a 'New Cold War' has been referred to enough to justify having an article on the subject. (One possible approach is to keep this article specifically for claims of a 'New Cold War', similar to New antisemitism, and move the more detailed geopolitical analysis to another article, along the lines of Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States.) Terraxos (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. How is it a notable term? A notable term has a single, clearly-identifiable meaning. This does not. It is a phrase, which will therefore often be used. Please. -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just trying to follow your logic here; what would be the rationale for only discussing this particular usage of the neologism and censoring other usages (e.g. US intervention in Central America or religious nationalism) demonstrated above? csloat (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, as far as I can see this phrase has not even reached the point of being a "neologism" yet. If it is kept, most of the material in the article needs to be deleted, as it is connected to the phrase "New Cold War" only by "original synthesis."  I also notice that the source for the phrase "New Cold War" in the intro actually uses the expression "new Cold War" with the "n" in lower-case type -- not a good sign. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Instead of characterising current political situation, the term imposes certain negative sentiments on it. ellol (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete ... Please give historians a chance ... it's only been a week since the Ossetian crisis! Anyways, this article seems just like another excuse for wannabe political scientists to go on a massive WP:SYN violation spree. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:13, 23 August 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.