Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Great Game


 * 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 Consensus. -- Balloonman (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New Great Game

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listing on behalf of Curzon, who appears to be unfamiliar with deletion processes. User's rationale for deletion:
 * This article is a blog-style essay posing as an article. The non-opinion content should be placed in other articles and this article should be considered for deletion.
 * – Gurch 11:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject International relations has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems sufficiently well-referenced and notable as a concept in its own right. The article has neutrality issues, in that it basically assumes the central thesis is correct, but that just means it needs some rewriting, not deletion. Terraxos 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - This article really does appear like a blog entry of some sort, with questionable source references in relation to what is actually written, and rather obvious POV flaws. I tried to edit it, but the subject matter seems rather hopeless, and very open to opinionated bias. This does not belong on an encyclopedia, so much as it does on either a political blog or newsletter. Atari400 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Complete rewrite. If not possible, strong delete - The page can't fit in any specific place in any encyclopedia as it is now. Rashid's theses could be summed up, compressed and put into a "New Great Game (book)" page, but that's really the only proper way I can think about them being hosted at Wikipedia. Billy Pilgrim 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. This is a poorly-written article with POV issues and potential violations of WP:SYN. It may be possible to salvage with either a re-write or a combination re-write and re-list as New Great Game (book). Majoreditor 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Terraxos. It seems a shame to delete something so thorough, even if it has certain issues. Panichappy 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A google search for "New Great Game" -wikipedia retrieved 89,800 hits. This article has nearly 40 notes. That the article needs re-writing does not justify deletion. It justifies re-writing. Kingturtle 17:49, 15 November 2007 (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.