Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 01:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War
A violation of just about all conventions. The beginning makes it clear that it's just a soapbox for a relatively little-known advocacy group: "On March 6, 1996, David R. Morgan, the National President of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms presented The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946 - 1985 to enumerate those world events wherein the imminent use of nuclear weapons was either threatened or implied." 172 16:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As it stands this is a record of the contents of a minor speech - generalize by a move to 'Nuclear Crises of the Cold War' ('known' is redundant as we're hardly likely to list unknown ones!)--Doc (?) 18:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, move to a title that doesn't have a hard-coded number. This doesn't violate any convention that I see. Does need better references for each nuclear crisis, but this wouldn't be difficult. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cold war. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to nuclear crises during the Cold War and delete the redirect. Neutralitytalk 05:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * You people seem to be missing the point. The article will not make a basis for a list of Cold War-era "nuclear crises." As it stands, it is just a random sample of topics that really have nothing to do with each other aside from being listed in the same speech by an anti-nuclear activist. The only place for this list is the article on the individual making the speech. 172 08:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The basis of the article is that on the listed occasions "the imminent use of nuclear weapons was either threatened or implied". This is a fairly sensible and verifiable criterion and we can remove any items that don't reasonably qualify here. Some items may be questionable and should be removed, but this doesn't invalidate the basis of the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are adding "implied" to the criterion, the classification is anything but easily verifiable and easy to qualify. This leaves way too much leeway for interpreting intent. You will never find total consensus among historians for every item that could possibly listed, barring the classic case of the Cuban Missle Crisis. Consider, e.g., the hotly debated claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were really hollow threats to the Soviet Union by Truman, who was exploiting the U.S. nuclear monopoly and knew it to be so. This interpretation has been one of the most hotly debated arguments in the historiography on the Cold War ever since the British physicist PMS Blackett first made it to wide notice in 1948, and especially after revisionist historian Gar Alperovitz supported it in 1965. Imagine the POV dispute here on Wikipedia that would occur if someone tried to add an item to the list based on it... While arguments that other events were backed by implicit treats of nuclear force might not be as emotional, they are not at all any less complicated and any more easy to interpret. As a rule, classification schemes for history are generally not as simple as they would seem at first glance, and they certainly are not in this case... Further, this list serves no useful purpose. A good survey article on the Cold War and the arms race ought to link to all of the events that would be listed on such a page. Such a list would be way too much trouble (including the likelihood of "original research") for whatever potential value it might have. 172 16:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I take your point about "implied". I would not expect events involving such interpretation to be included.  I do think the article even in its present, unverified form is useful and may stimulate further research.  If it should prove to be valueless then it will languish for a year or two and then we can revisit it. If it should both prove valueless and attract controversy all the better; give the edit warriors something to do instead of arguing about Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, or whatever.  Spread the damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It would generate further original research, as no reference authority has established a standard list of Cold War "nuclear crises." BTW, I hope this "spread the damage" mentality has not become the norm on Wikipedia since I left as an active editor a few months ago. Edit warriors should be stopped when they are spewing crap into the Castro and Pinochet articles, and they should be stopped when they are messing up more obscure topics. When I singed up for an account in 2002, the objective of Wikipedia was to develop a credible internet sourcebook. Now the objective seems to be providing people with a social outlet and babysitting difficult users. 172 06:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Move to 'Nuclear Crises of the Cold War', or merge into David R. Morgan with a link from "related articles" on Cold War. Andy Mabbett 11:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Disorganized. POV.
 * Above vote was from Joebwan. -- Wisq 15:46, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not move. Content might be merged in David R. Morgan or elsewhere as appropriate, but this should not be the seed of an article itself. The fruit would be ruined by the point of view at its roots. --Michael Snow 05:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence presented that most of these are "nuclear crises" at all. There might well be a case for an article on nuclear crises of the Cold War, of which the Cuban missile crisis would be a good example; this isn't it, nor is it a good start for one. -- The Anome 15:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - since it's based on some guy's speech, it's original research. CDC   (talk)  04:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently original research. --Carnildo 17:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with 172. RadicalSubversiv E 19:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per 172 and Carnildo. Ambi 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per 172. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.