Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III


 * 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-27 05:19Z 

World War III

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Takeel 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the page history is rather bizarre but telling. This article has only ever been made up of original research, which various editors have diligently tried to remove or ameliorate.  The answer, I think, is to delete the article unless someone comes up with actual sources that can move this article beyond simply stating "WWIII is the hypothetical next world war." - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes it needs improving but so do various other articles. The concept of WWIII is well known within popular culture and the public psyc. This is deserving of an article. It was also a previous featured article candiate and the entry on the discussion page shows only one point missing on the star. If I wasn't so tired I'd add more (and may edit later, sorry)AlanD 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- is a well used phrase Astrotrain 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This term has been used many times by writers and politicians to describe the war on terror and the Cold War, however the article delves in "what could have been". It would be better if some mention was made of this. -- † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well established term. Useful/interesting article. Steve.Moulding 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the above comments has any relation to wikipedia policy. "I Like it" or "it's interesting" is not a valid reason to keep.  "I hear this phrase a lot" is not a reason to keep.  The article needs sources and assertions of verifiablity.  Furthermore, I suspect the FA candidate note at the top is a hoax as there is no subpage.  PLEASE try to restrict comments to how the article does/doesn't/might eventually meet wikipedia policy.  - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK it's not a hoax, I found the very old subpage, but still not a reason to keep the article. Even the FA discussion falls into the trap of EQUIVOCATING the concept of "World War III" with "Nuclear War" and "Cold War."  This is a problem!- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very common concept. Hundreds of books, movies and video games deal with it and call it by that name.  Not to mention the fact that USSR and US both based their policies on the idea for 50 years.  Article could be sourced, just because it appears OR now does not mean it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the page history? Your point is well-taken, but look at the way it has been applied.  People just add whatever they feel like "might" constitute a reference to WWIII.  I am skeptical. - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the history contains a lot of vandalism and pure OR but Wikipedia needs an article on WWIII. If I had the time I would go ahead and find sources and all, but I am at work.  The historical close calls section could probably even be referenced using sources from the articles discussed. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just because a page is a magnet for original research is not an argument for its deletion. If it were, we would not have a page on the United States presidential election, 2008. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Very widely-used term that could have some interesting content. Not very good right now, but it's still notable. But World War IV definately needs to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Unsure Ive actually read this article well before it was nominated as an AfD. If this is going then can someone remove World War IV as by the same nature this is crystal ball stuff.

Also the World War IV article mentions that world war IV as the War on Terrorism, and the World War 3 as the Cold War.

I cant decide on this one - but bear in mind that World War I was not commonly called this until many years after. --PrincessBrat 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The concept is well-established and the term is in relatively wide use, but the article seems to have deteriorated over time (see versions about 400 edits ago).  The article needs significant cleanup, but the topic is deserving of an article. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest as an additional possibility merging into World War III in popular culture or vice versa (merging the "popular culture" article into this one). -- Black Falcon 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Right now, the article deals with "close to World War III" events, which are an original research. I've noted nearly all information was indeed added by anonymous editors without a proper source, examples include,  and . In order for this to be kept I suggest merging World War III in popular culture into it following a significant cleanup. I would generally expect an article on the concept and idea, not the war resembles themselves.   Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; At first I thought this would be a no-brainer, but now that I look at the article I think the nomination has validity. The page definitely needs more development to be a valid article on the topic. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename This title should be reserved for when the next world war starts, currently scheduled for July 2007 I believe. What, you didn't get the memo? -- Kendrick7talk 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very common concept. --Djsasso 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't discuss the concept.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But it could; AfD is as much about what an article can be as what it is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Like what Josiah Rowe said. Its about what the article can become just as much as what it is now. Just because it needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Djsasso 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well of course I'm not suggesting to remove the article, but a revamp of the article focus is necessary in this case.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' Needs substantial clean-up, but I'm sure that reliable sources from the Cold War era could be found to back it up, and discuss how common a concept it was during the second half of the twentieth century. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep but delete World War IV per WP:CRYSTAL, as it really is not an important cultural entity and is entirely potential and non-factual. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on 'Weapons to be used in World War III' is not."
 * Speedy Keep Well established term with Zillions of Media refrences.Also,WWIII could start tomorrow for all we know.Corporal Punishment 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Real Concept, not a crystal ball, as such, not our speculation. FrozenPurpleCube 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I !voted to merge and redirect on Articles for deletion/World War IV (second nomination) but this is different. We can definitely have this article -- a very common term/concept, although not an existing event. --N Shar 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. World War III?  Seriously?  (jarbarf) 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did anyone happen to read the page I linked to in my reason statement? Here's an excerpt. --Takeel 03:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider that somewhat in error myself (in that future weapons development is possibly a topic of some encyclopedic value, for example the recent Air Force ray gun). However, and perhaps most importantly, the concept of World War III is established enough that it does exist, and as such should be described.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Takeel, we can read. The article you nominated is about the reality of WWIII as we know it (as opposed to the media hype, or potential weapons that may be used).  Please remember that WWI and WWII were both this century, and each resulted in a new world administrative body being created to ensure another WW didnt occur.  WWIII has hovered over our heads for decades, and most nations have (big) buildings worth of classified material on scenarios, and how do deal with those scenarios should it happen.  It is a real subject; the references are provided in the linked article (maybe this should be converted to a list of close calls?), and Afd is not the appropriate spot for discuss editorial issues. John Vandenberg 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good day. Would you mind adding information about the classified material you mentioned to the article?  It could only help.  Thank you. --Takeel 13:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I expect that some of these classified books and war scenario documents should be available under FOI by now, but the topics are politically sensitive (hence being classified in the first place) and reliable sources usually steer clear. For the Australian doctrines, we first of all need articles for Kamaria, Tarajara  and Musoria . John Vandenberg 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There appears to be a misunderstanding of what "crystal ball" means, because reporting things that have been said and written in the past about a possible future event is not prophecy. There is nothing speculative about reporting that somebody in the past said something; it is a fact that the person said it. The article should be understood as being about the concept, which has a history. Everyking 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-established and wide used concept. --Carioca 04:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article could use some clean-up, but is not unprofessional or non-encyclopedic. It's a valid topic to make an article about, although some elaboration would be preferable. 76.168.46.83 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this article simply cannot be deleted because it is informative, as a Wikipedia article should be. Such a common topic should have it's place in an encyclopedia. However, this article does need more than just a "historical close calls" section. --138.89.186.113 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this is a common concept, and it is the right term. See World War III in popular culture for just some examples of the term's use in science fiction. Remember, an article needing cleanup calls for cleanup tags, not deletion. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:38, 27 February 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.