Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/New Cold War

In response to User:EconomistBR original nomination

 * from original nomination:


 * Just to address your assertion that "this article certifies that a New Cold War exists between Russia" and the United States, that's just absolutely erroneous. The article does nothing of the sort.  The article states that "'New Cold War' is a term used to describe a perceived rekindling of conflict, tension, and competition between Russia and other Western Powers."  If reliable, verifiable sources are defining this term as one to refer to relations between the United States and Russia, it's our job to address that, not to superimpose our viewpoint.    user:j    (aka justen)   02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Recognizing a current perception is not predicting the future, and the term has been in general use for nearly a decade as it relates to this topic, so I think repeating your "neologism" argument doesn't make it any more accurate.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Robert A West

 * 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)
 * Do you not consider nearly three-thousand articles going back several years to be general use? By comparison, and with apologies to EconomistBR, "second dot com bubble" has nine.    user:j    (aka justen)   02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This example shows the problems inherent in Google tests. Of the first ten articles, two are warnings not to provoke a new cold war, two are denials that any such thing exists, and the remaining six are highly duplicative.  The next ten are mostly speculative articles about whether such a thing could come about.  Skimming through the results convinces me that this is a term du jour at best.  Google never was intended to serve this kind of purpose, and outside of identifying topics with almost no hits, it doesn't do it particularly well.  As for "second dot-com bubble", I had never heard a non-joking non-hyperbolic reference to such a thing before I read your response above.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I don't like the test, either. The question shouldn't be the quantity of the sources once you get to a certain point, but the relevance and reliability.  Which is why I hope you'll take a closer look at the sources cited in the article, and address those, which do define the term and address the topic.  (As to Bubble 2.0, my reference to it is in jest.  It appears to be a non-notable topic, which is why I think EconomistBR's bringing it up at this AfD shouldn't be used as any sort of a straw man with regard to the notability of New Cold War.)    user:j    (aka justen)   02:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Annette46

 * 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)
 * Can you clarify what you do define as notable? And do you have any comments on this, this, this, or this?    user:j    (aka justen)   04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, every time we get a face-off between the 2 superpowers the media trots out hackneyed neologisms like New Cold War. For me a neologism like Transmogrifier is notable, because it is slowly but surely establishing its notability and does not depend upon its inherent  "NEW"ness or fashion. Annette46 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The third link I offered up there is from 2004, talking about a New Cold War between Russia and the West, with "Georgia [as] the cockpit of a new cold war." Your transmogrifier neologism began in 1987, but it has had only about sixty apparent mentions in the media since then.  I could cite just as many, if not more, going back nearly a decade, that clearly define and outline the topic of this article.  Do you believe that this topic, as it is defined in this article, is non-notable?  I think there are an overwhelming number of verifiable and reliable sources that indicate that this topic is notable, with about a dozen currently cited in the article...  If you're not seeing that, I'm just not sure what to say, except that your transmogrifier might be interfering with the fact that this topic is notable...  :)    user:j    (aka justen)   06:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete A google search for transmogrifier does not show ANY media hits for the first 50 results, google search would show that it is no longer a neologism but entering common speech as the best descriptive word for a particular concept. OTOH "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)

In response to User:70.51.11.210

 * 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)
 * Uhh, perhaps, but it's much more frequently apparently used to describe the topic of this article. Nevertheless, your stated rationale doesn't support "delete," it's a reason for a disambiguation.  Please take a look at WP:DEL.    user:j    (aka justen)   13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:62.72.110.11

 * 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)
 * Who is this IP? To find IPs with intimate knowledge of Wikipedia policy is highly unusual. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that this person's opinion is somehow irrelevant? Registration is not required to participate. Further, I don't see any actual references to Wikipedia policy in this IP's statement; it seems more like an appeal to common sense. Glass  Cobra  21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:AlexTiefling

 * 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)
 * Does this book from six months ago, or this one from a year ago, both in reference to Russia, fall within your fortnight policy? The article has a dozen reliable, verifiable references for the term, as presented.    user:j    (aka justen)   14:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:CopperKettle

 * 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)
 * I wish I could substitute the wisdom of "historians" in place of the reality of "mass-media labeling," but I can't, and neither should you. When did AfD become "my opinion and my viewpoint matter more than policy"?  Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Kotniski

 * 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)

In response to User:EconomistBR revised nomination

 * from revised nomination:

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, 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)


 * Comment. Per midstream revision by nom: "This sensationalist article is doing a disservice to the history of the Twentieth Century."  The "article" is sensationalist, eh?  Riiiight...    user:j    (aka justen)   18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In repsonse to User:Ex ottoyuhr

 * 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)
 * Pathetic comment. You put in doubt my reputation just to prove your point, that's awful. Be a man at least now, and talk it out with me over there instead of smearing my reputation. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only questioning your reliability because with your having attempted to deny war crimes -- or at least disparage them -- I no longer see any reason whatsoever to assume good faith. Russia is violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and trying (unsuccessfully) to hide it, and you are providing them moral support. I want to make sure that administrators who are new to the conflict are aware of that. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever man...you humiliated me by putting into question my reputation. I am not providing them with anything, I commented on the News article, which I still consider a op-ed.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be more careful in the future: arguing in favor of a position is providing it moral support, at least in my book, and I don't take kindly to violators of the Geneva Conventions -- although I directed at you too much of my anger at the Russians. Let me emphasize that I did not intend to humiliate you, and I sincerely hope that you'll forgive me for that. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This debate is not about allegations of Russian war crimes in Georgia or elsewhere, though. It's about whether this specific application of this specific neologism is notable. There's plenty of coverage of the conflict in northern Georgia in other articles. I don't think President Medvedev cares very much about Wikipedia editors, tbh. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both points are true. I get angry very easily about these issues... My revised opinion below stands: I think the article should be kept, and the discussion should be ended; but there should be discussion of the full range of meanings of "New Cold War." ExOttoyuhr (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would hope that we can discuss whether this meets Wikipedia standards without worrying about the politics of it one way or another. I am certainly not interested in "whitewashing" Russia (and I've never heard of the Ossetia war before reading your post), but in my research I've come across the phrase "new cold war" in multiple instances since the 1970s to describe all kinds of things, including the book I cited above.  This example of its being used in the past couple weeks is interesting, but no more notable than its use in other contexts, and the sources cited are strung together as if they were coherent when they are in fact talking about different things (the very definition of a WP:SYN violation).  This is totally independent of anyone's feelings about Russia or Ossetia or anything else in terms of actual content. csloat (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with you, you should probably be aware that showing ignorance of the war over South Ossetia diminishes rather than enhances your ability to speak with authority on this topic; it has unquestionably been the major relevant news story in the past fortnight, and arguably the single biggest international story of all in that period - it's been on the Wikipedia front page for a reasonable proportion of that time. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have clarified - here in the U.S. we've been informed about the crisis and military action but the papers mostly refer to Georgia and not Ossetia. So, yes, I have actually heard of it, but I haven't been paying attention and this is the first time I was aware of the name of Ossetia. csloat (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On politics and whitewashing: I'm convinced by the various posts here that "New Cold War" is used of more than just the response to the 2008 war in Georgia; however, this makes it less suitable for deletion, rather than more. Let me change my vote to Withdraw AfD -- this is an article that should discuss more, not less. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You, also, cannot withdraw someone else's AfD request. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that -- I missed that statement above. Make that Strong Keep again, with discussion of the full range of meanings "New Cold War" has been given. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be using reliable sources confirming that this new conflict exists in the first place. Right now we are officiallizing something that is not consensus among historians. An incredibly serious conflict based on News articles nothing more, that borders original research.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 528,000 results on a Google search and two published books, ISBN-13s 978-0230606128 and 978-0786720835 (both of which predate the 2008 invasion of Georgia), are an interesting definition of "not notable," as Poeticbent points out. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Half a million results talking about half a million different things. We cannot have a wikipedia article about a neologism that is so ill defined that it can be used in so many different ways.  Simply citing numbers of google hits does not help your point; in fact, it refutes it, as I have shown below. csloat (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Jakezing

 * 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)
 * We're not speculating or "crystaling." It's an article based on the media's usage of the term.    user:j    (aka justen)   02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The media and scholars have used the term in hundreds of different ways for about 4 decades. Concentrating on this one crystal ball example is a real problem in terms of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. csloat (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Revised nomination discussion
EconomistBR's attempt to revise the nom after much discussion had already taken place can be found here. It's worth pointing out the key focus of the article is not solely the situation in South Ossetia, and many of the cited sources go back months or years before the military conflict, and address Poland, the Ukraine, etc.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you crazy?? You crossed the line there.
 * I have the right to edit and delete what I write as many times as I want. That's none of your business. Don't do that again.


 * You have been flooding the discussion page, instead of being concise and letting others speak.
 * You have written 10 different comments on that page, you are attempting to keep that article through brute force. Am I complaining? NO, because you have the RIGHT to do so. So respect my rights.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can write "ten different comments," or more, regardless of their relevancy, and place them anywhere in the AfD you want, but your revised commentary belongs in the discussion, not in the nom. However, you cannot significantly modify your nom midstream.  It implies that others may have endorsed your revised rationale, which is not the case.  Clearly identify your revision or I will do it for you.    user:j    (aka justen)   18:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't imply anything. Every single delete or keep vote is justified and explained by the editor himself, I am not being endorsed. They vote and then explain their vote, otherwise their vote is worthless, you know that.
 * Another thing, I much rather have 1 concise comment explaing my point than 10 different comments breaking up my point, flooding the discussion page and forcing editors to waste time reading all that in order to understand the situation.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You think that reading other's opinions is a waste of time? Ugg.    user:j    (aka justen)   19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No...reading 10 different comments instead of reading just 1 really good comment is a collosal waste of time, indeed.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for not using strikethrough

 * We should search for the best argument and that requires constant improvement. We must be capable of expressing our opinion in shortest possible ammount of space in order to convince the Administrator judging that Afd.


 * Mind that the administrators read all comments and then make their rulling based on the quality of the arguments.


 * That said, I advise everybody to improve their respective arguments. If anybody desires to read our past arguments just check the History
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  03:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Improving your communication of your opinion is encouraged. Significantly revising your opinion after others have responded to that opinion is not conducive to an open and honest discussion on Wikipedia.    user:j    (aka justen)   03:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? We are all free to edit our arguments in response to other people editing their arguments.
 * This way we save time from the administrators reading the Afd. It goes back to "reading 10 different comments instead of reading just 1 really good comment" is a waste of time.
 * We really need to be concise, administrators are tired of reading Afd arguments.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, administrators will read however much is necessary; it's part of the job. Economist, your argument of "we are all free to edit our arguments in response to other people editing [theirs]" is incorrect, as you're the only one currently editing your comments. Please see the comment that I left on your talkpage, detailing why strikethrough is used, as well as its documentation in guidelines and etiquette lists: guidelines for editing one's own comments, WP:REFACTOR and AfD Wikietiquette. Glass  Cobra  06:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Other uses of "new cold war"
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)


 * What an amazing research! The best argument I've read so far. Your research totally debunks User:J's main argument for keeping this article.
 * You really should add that to your main argument, the administrators have to read this.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  04:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The opportunity for broadening an article does not equate to justification for deletion.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really think that User_j should remain dispassionate. I could also have made out the same list as Commodore Sloat but this debate is now too linked to Ossetia to make any sense. Annette46 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EconomistBR, I'm a little confused as to why you think the presentation of evidence that "New Cold War" as a term is in fact notable and widespread somehow debunks a keep argument. This means that the article should be expanded, not deleted. As per your acknowledgement of this renewed evidence, would you be willing to withdraw this AfD? Glass  Cobra  04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The evidence is a strong argument for article deletion not expansion, and its amazing how the originators of this article are singing a different "expansion" tune when confronted with the evidence from as basic a source as google. With 40 years of use of the term "New" Cold War for so many different things unconnected with the article even while the "Old" Cold War was ongoing, this establishes that this current avatar is as non-notable and unencyclopedic as its predecessors. Lets delete this article first and if anyone is so passionate to keep it let them give us a draft for this article on your User Page incorporating all the "evidence". Annette46 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon? You appear to be lumping me in with some arbitrary "originators" group when in fact I had no exposure to this article prior to this current AfD. It escapes me how exactly you can come to the conclusion that all the evidence you yourself presented that documents specifically how often and in how many different contexts this term has been used somehow means that this page should in fact be deleted. I repeat, if anything, the list of evidence presented by csloat proves to me that this term is quite notable, having been used for several different situations. This AfD should be withdrawn, and the page improved to include all the varying usages. Why must the page be deleted before it can be expanded? Glass  Cobra  06:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that this term is so "weaselly" and non-specific should preclude its use in encyclopedia (even non-paper ones) for its self-evident LACK of notability and consistency. In the History of Wikipedia no one had though fit to start an article for the 50 other uses of the term; the article as it stands is such a non-notable neologism that a delete is the best way out to PREVENT this "modern" usage from SWAMPING out all the others. Its just one of those banal terms which hacks and scholars trot out when they have to meet a deadline. Annette46 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would "those banal terms" also include "Cold War", "World War", "Mutually Assured Destruction" and "New World Order" per chance? O_o; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And "Iron Curtain"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't think it would. csloat (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Warrents a dab page.
I’m hearing and seeing more and more of a current subject summarized by the phrase “new cold war”. This is an useful search term, and it should at least be a dab page pointing to more specific (less ambiguous) subjects, as clearly exist as per above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason, a priori, why there couldn't be. Make certain that every entry is sourced and you're all set.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)