Deleting admin's note: image originally deleted was Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg. Speedy deletion under NFCC#2/CSDI7, for being from a commercial news source. Was re-uploaded immediately after first deletion without attempt at discussion. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects a news agency's commercial rights
WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep deleted. Images were used a mere two years ago in the New York Times. It seems to me this is well within their commercial lifetimes. Nandesuka (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, blatant violation of NFCC 2 and probably don't meet 1 or 8 either. The requesting user is also encouraged to follow the instruction on this page to discuss matters with the deleting admin before listing here, although it probably would not have accomplished anything in this specific case.
Reaffirm own deletion, as per Nandesuka and Stifle. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; deleted as a
WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Deleting admin's note: image originally deleted was Image:Lew Anderson.jpg. Speedy deletion under NFCC#2/CSDI7, for being from a commercial news source. Was re-uploaded immediately after first deletion without attempt at discussion. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects news agency's commercial rights
WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep deleted. This image is a mere two years old, and was recently used in the New York Times, USA Today, and other publications. That's quite within the lifetime of a commercial photograph, and doesn't fall into the "historical archives" exemption on NFCC#2. Nandesuka (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm own deletion. On reflection and on reading comments made about my actions on ANI, I see no reason to change my opinion. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; deleted as a
WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Image:Bo Yibo – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here is that the closer corectly interpreted the NFC criteria. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Bo190.jpg) and closed in a fairly normal way. Nominator here does not say how the image meets WP fair use requirements and has not given a reason as to why the closing admin's decision was incorrect. Why also has this not been discussed with the closing admin per the instructions at the top of this page ? - Peripitus(Talk) 11:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn; deleted as a
WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Reaffirm own deletion. It was a commercial news image from Reuters. Deletion meets the spirit and the letter of both
Endorse IFD policies were followed just fine. I looked up one Getty image, and for a 200x300 thumbnail they wanted $300 for a two-year license. They are clearly in the business of licensing low-res photos. This fails WP:NFCC2. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You will get those articles recreated, I have yet to see sports fans lose one. Still, those are non-notable soccer players, that fact will likely produce low quality articles but since they are under the protection of the
WP:ATHLETE
the articles will stay.
A side note, just for soccer players there are over 30,000 articles, all very notable indeed. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a widespread fallacy among sports fans that the guideline which says that players at a certain level are likely to have the kind of coverage that allows us ot have an article, means that all players at that level must have an article regardless of the existence of reliable independent sources. Funny, really. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These were all PRODs, so strictly they should be restored on request.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
New Cold War – Deletion endorsed. There is certainly no consensus below that Coren's closure of the AfD was incorrect. Weighing up the arguments below, and partly discounting those who are arguing AfD pass 2, the balance is that significantly on the side of keeping the article deleted and endorsing the closure. – Peripitus(Talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Deleted as original research by the closing admin (under CSD G6), when the result of the discussion was no consensus for delete. I believe the closing admin substituted his judgment for that of the nearly fifty participants in the discussion. I understand that the job of closing a deletion discussion is to weigh arguments not based on quantity but based on our policies, but as best as I can tell, four participants raised concerns with synthesis or original research (two of which came in very late in the process, about three hours prior to close). Meanwhile, at least four others felt it was strongly sourced and cited. That's out of at least 46 participants. I don't believe in tallies for determining outcome, but I do believe it can help gauge whether or not any consensus has been reached: by my count 21 participants advocated for keep or some variant thereof, while 26 advocated for delete or some variant thereof. Certainly, I think many people, including myself (as the first editor of the article) and the nominator for deletion, believed there was no consensus for delete. user:j (aka justen) 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus. As J said, the OR concerns were a very small minority; further, Coren seems to have completely missed the discussion between myself and csloat regarding the improvement of the article on the talk page of the AfD. I said from the very beginning that AfD was completely incorrect for the article; with all the sources provided, it should have been made into a list, nothing more than a glorified disambig page, detailing the various usages of the term through the decades. GlassCobra 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Coren's reasoning looks sound to me. Discussion of possible "new cold wars" does not amount to any kind of authority for the existence of a term "new cold war" or any scholarly conensus as to how it might be defined. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; as closer. I've reexamined the evidence to see if I missed some substantive argument, to no avail. All of the keeps were based on the fact that the phrase was found in use on the web and in the media. "New movies" gets 98 million ghits and is used a myriad times in the media, that does not mean there should be an article with that title either. The phrase is used constructively, by multiple independent entities and for dozens of different meanings. It's not even a neologism: it's a politically loaded catchphrase with no set meaning; any article on the topic is doomed to be
original research, no matter how fancy and cleaned up. — Coren(talk) 18:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
As an aside to the vote counters out there: I did simply discount the keeps that were based on "I've seen it in the media/in a book title" as they do not address the primary problem of original synthesis. — Coren(talk) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I've always believed that there was consensus to delete, User:J is quoting a deleted statement that doesn't reflect my views or opinions on the matter. Of course User:J violated
Overturn There was no basis for this deletion in any deletion criteria. There was a lot of good reasoning for having it modified but the subject of a New Cold War is just as legitimate as an article on World War III or the New Great Game. The arguments given against it were not sufficient arguments for deletion and it seems Coren even conceded as much by not even bringing up the neologism or crystal nonsense put forward by those advocating deletion. AfD isn't there so an admin can wait five days, jump in, give their own opinion, and delete an article based on their own inklings. If that were the case there wouldn't even be a need for discussion. The article was flawed no doubt, but the subject was perfectly legitimate. No need to delete that which can be improved. It seems however that some people just weren't willing to give it a chance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bring the "neologism" argument up because the phrase isn't even worthy of the term: it's not a new term for some concept, it's a strictly constructive phrase with no set meaning. You have not addressed how "improving" the article could be done in a way that is not original research (which, I should remind you, is the reason why neologisms aren't acceptable either). — Coren(talk) 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strong set meaning, across dozens of reliable sources. Here's an article from The Nation, in 2005, titled "The Media's New Cold War" (referring to Russia). Here's an article from the Washington Post in 2006, titled "Russian Media Warn of New Cold War." You have your opinion on the matter, but that opinion wasn't supported with consensus from the deletion debate. Which is why your close needs to be overturned. user:j (aka justen) 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No phrase or term has a single definition, but one thing which could certainly be agreed is the present-day take of a new cold war is going to be almost entirely referring to something between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. and China, or the U.S. and both. There are also several sources which talk of this situation matter-of-factly as a New Cold War. Some examples in reference to Georgia: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and one that's a litte more interesting: [9] I said before that I do not like the term "New Cold War", but I don't like the term "Cold War" either. However, this has gotten sufficient notable coverage that to delete the article is simply ridiculous. You can't simply ignore books, articles, and chattering pundits talking about a new cold war with Russia not just for the past few weeks, but past few years. There are clearly a lot of issues here well beyond simply Georgia as some deletion advocates said. This dispute over the Arctic resources, the talk of Russian military in Cuba or Venezuela, the missile defense dispute, and now this conflict in Georgia have all had people talking about a new cold war. Also, no argument given in the AfD did anything to address the basic issue of notability and verifiability. Clearly both criteria were satisfied and no other sufficient criteria for deletion existed. Your argument about original research doesn't satisfy as the subject itself was not original research and did not require original research for substance. You can't delete an article on the basis that it contains original research, that's an argument for improvement. The subject itself was not original research and had ample verifiability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources simply mention the term "new Cold War" informally and only once. Those sources don't attempt to even define the term and don't treat the term with seriousness. Coren has a point when he writes: "unless someone brings up reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase, as opposed to simply using the phrase itself in yet another new context." ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Although the article was extremely well written, interesting, and I am certainly reluctant to see it deleted, wikipedia is not a primary source for synthesized material. I suggest the author submit it to one of many online magazines for publication, I think many would be glad to have it. It is patently unsuitable for Wikipedia, however, and therefore Coren closed this discussion appropriately. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The closer seemed to impose his own opinion of the matter rather than following the discussion in which there was clearly no consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, by the way, that the phrase New Cold War is quite irrelevant to this since, per
WP:NEO, if the title is ambiguous or otherwise unclear, we can readily move to another title such as Russo-American relations in the early 21st century or the like. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That would be a totally different article; feel free to start it. This article is about "new cold war," which could refer to any number of things (I have listed at least ten during the discussion), which is why the deletion was warranted. csloat (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet more sources explicitly calling this a New Cold War proving the argument about original research or not having notability is flawed: [10][11][12][13]This one is actually referring to Litvinenko, not Georgia or any of the other issues. [14][15]A poll showing most Americans believe there is likely to be a new cold war. Also a comment from the former Georgian President saying there is a New Cold War which started over missile defense. I think all of these sources pretty much obliterate most of the arguments given in favor of deletion since several of these not only say there is a new cold war but that it was the case before the recent developments in Georgia, including one source connecting it to the New Great Game. When one considers the debate in several areas brought up constantly in various situations, in fact here's another source on that very debate showing it was a topic months before the conflict, it's hard to imagine how there could have been any justification for deleting the article. The broad scope of the debate itself suggests it is a subject deserving of an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That "New Great Game" article is one big
WP:SYN violation. It should be the next AfD. csloat (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
Overturn Even the person who nominated it was convinced by the evidence submitted during the discussion, and tried to withdraw the afd. The number of books cited was more than sufficient to fully establish the notability of the subject. The closing was overinfluenced by the delete comments at the beginning. I think the article title might need some clarification, butt hat's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, I've always been convinced that there was consensus to delete and I never tried to withdraw the AfD. I did try to offer a compromise solution so that there would be no losers or winners, not only was I ignored, the offer was read as a sign of weakness of my position. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; you didn't withdraw the AfD, you stated you would accept other things than deletion. I apparently misread, giving you credit for recognizing the massive evidence supporting the use of the term in political science in contexts other than Ossetia. DGG (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I should point out that you've just shot your own argument in the foot. With a 12-gauge no less. The phrase is used in a lot of contexts, meaning all sorts of different things— that means that any article on one of those use is is necessarily original research, and thus verbotten— unless someone brings up reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase, as opposed to simply using the phrase itself in yet another new context. — Coren(talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
on the contrary, my argument is for the expansion of the article to express a broader viewpoint--the opposite of deletion. As the following arguments show, others seem to have understood this. DGG (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Clearly, there was no consensus to delete. The closing admin gives the following rationale: "This isn't a New Cold War of set meaning (even as a neologism), but several allusions or parallels drawn to new Cold Wars.".. Few to none of this AfD participants actually suggested this. People have written books about New Cold war, this is not "an allusion". There is a significant literature about the "New Cold War", which is simply a growing confrontation between Russia and the West, according to the main meaning of the expression. Surprisingly, this article has been deleted exactly at the moment of the second Russian-Georgian war, which marks the beginning of the "New Cold War" according to many observers.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The assertion that we are experiencing a New Cold War is ludicrous, since there is no definition or consensus among historians or political analystis. It's IMPOSSIBLE for this Cold War to have books written about it because it has has as background the
2008 South Ossetia war that happened 3 weeks ago. The definition and the background of this New Cold War were created entirely by User:J, they don't exist anywhere else because the war itself doesn't exist. It's very hard to move on if the issues regarding "original research" are not dealt with or even acknowledged. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I gotta point out the numerous flaws with your argument, partly because many calling for deletion used similar arguments:
The article did not claim the New Cold War was an actual occurring event but that some have considered these events as an indication it is.
The Russia-Georgia conflict is not the only background to this article, far from it. As I pointed out this idea has been around for a while sparked by other events like the dispute over the Arctic, the spread of NATO, the West's backing of Kosovo's declaration of independence, the American missile defense system, the assassination of Litvinenko, and Russia's attempt to monopolize natural resources as well as using those resources for political purposes.
The original research claim only applies if the subject of the article itself is original research or synthesis. If the article merely has original research in it but the subject itself is both verifiable and notable then original research is only a case for improvements, not deletion.
Your argument for deletion was inadequate and Coren's argument was as well. I admittedly did not review all the sources used to see what specifically they said, however if they were not good sources that is not an argument for deletion, but for getting better sources and there are plenty of sources to back this subject up. Ultimately the article itself did not conflict with any policy on Wikipedia and did not satisfy the deletion criteria. Considering this deletion happened only days after the article was created I think this is a basic case of editors not giving an article a chance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1- "The article did not claim the New Cold War was an actual occurring event"... So Wikipedia had an article about a war that may not exist. This war could be occurring or not, we just don't know it yet...but just in case, we created an article about it. That's why that article violates the
WP:OR violating essay would have been digested there. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
1. So I take it your next target for deletion is the article for World War III? The article doesn't claim there's a New Cold War because presently that is a matter of dispute. Several have said there is a New Cold War and several has said there isn't. Others have said we are heading towards one. The back and forth discussion makes the subject notable. 2. Apparently you didn't read the background or you didn't read it very well. It was pretty clear that the conflict in Georgia was one of many things being cited to claim there was a New Cold War. It also cited the missile defense systems and issues over oil and gas. I don't remember everything cited, but I know there was more still. 3. It is a defined concept actually. It is simply a concept with multiple definitions but one commonality is that the modern-day usage of such a term is almost universally meant to be some form of new global struggle as a successor to the Cold War particular a struggle with some major power like Russia or China. You can keep chirping OR, but it's nonsense since I've already provided ample evidence that there are numerous reliable sources which could be cited in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Simply because the article was "strongly sourced" does not give it a free pass to be kept, see
WP:SYN. And even looking at all the news articles and speculation, it seems that the columnists themselves do not even have a consensus on whether there is a "New Cold War" going on. Many of the articles include a question mark after the phrase for example. To quote from one of them: Unfortunately, there appear to be plenty of people in the West who are now arguing for a new Cold War. They have fallen into the trap of believing that Putin is the new Hitler and Georgia the new Czechoslovakia, so “the West must make a stand”. ([16]) In addition, many other articles seem to oppose this idea, such as this one from the Salt Lake Tribune titled, "Despite Georgian-Russian conflict, new Cold War unlikely". Another example: While politicians sometimes talk of a new Cold War, none seems on the horizon. ([17]). Why don't we wait until there is an academic consensus on what the exact definition of the word is, and whether it's actually happening or not. I don't see any evidence of most experts agreeing here. For now, why don't we take Condi's advice and not jump the gun here. Khoikhoi 09:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Except the very fact it is so widely discussed suggests it is a subject notable enough in reliable sources to justify having an article on it. Something popularly speculated on, but not actually in existence or generally agreed upon can still be considered worthy of an article. No one's actually terra-formed a planet or colonized the Moon, but it's still a notable subject of discussion worthy of an article, so is this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the article is about the term applied to
crystal ball to see if the term will be ever notable in future. It was shown quite clear on AFD Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and close as no consensus. Clearly there was no consensus for deletion. The OR concerns advanced by a handful of people can be solved by improving the article rather than deleting it. Hobartimus (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus), let interested editors sort it out, and relist in a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was as clear a "no consensus" as I've seen in awhile. I'm growing weary of administrators simply imposing their own view in deletion discussions, instead of simply measuring where consensus is in the given discussion. Extra buttons do not give administrators extra rights not possessed by other editors. What this closing admin essentially did is count their recommendation as outweighing all the others who posted there and failed to reach consensus. This is unacceptable, and should be overturned. S.D.D.J.Jameson 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the validity of the arguments? If all that is required is a consensus then this article is going to be kept simply because editors want to, no rationale required. One can now create an article titled
WP:OR issue were ignored. Did Coren delete that article for the wrong reasons? That's the important question. Once again, unless the "original research" issues are recognized we will go in circles. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The issue specifically here at Deletion Review is whether User:Coren closed the deletion discussion properly and accurately. Many recognize the outcome of the discussion was that there was no consensus for delete, hence this deletion review. This isn't the best place to rehash the deletion discussion. user:j (aka justen) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I did is follow the principle guiding XfD: namely that policy trumps head counts, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.". — Coren(talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that a number of editors disagree with your assertion that the article is original research; headcount isn't the issue here. What is the issue is that you seem to believe that your opinion that the article was original research trumps anybody else's opinion that it is not original research. I believe you have essentially said here, now, that you closed the AfD not based on the consensus there but based on your own personal opinion of the article. That's a problem. user:j (aka justen) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? They did? Excellent, then you should have no problem giving a single reliable source that discusses "New Cold War" as a defined concept, as opposed to simply use the phrase as a rhetorical device? No? Odd. Strangely enough, pointing at original research and saying "not original research" is not an argument. In fact, I've just reread the AfD discussion and not a single editor has advanced that this was not original research; indeed 18 of the keeps were simply stating "notability" because media or book titles have used the phrase. How is this "dispute that this is original research"? — Coren(talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"No? Odd." I think dismissive rhetoric is not quite the best posture to take, but do as you will. You don't seem open to recognizing your error here, and this isn't the place to discuss your reasons for deletion; that place would have been the AfD, which you erroneously closed based on your own disputed opinion (an opinion that simply wasn't supported in that discussion). Nevertheless, I'd suggest you take a look at The Nation article entitled "The Media's New Cold War" or the Washington Post's article entitled "Russian Media Warn of New Cold War." If you want to debate your opinions on those articles sources, though, I'd suggest you take it up at a future AfD for the article. user:j (aka justen) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you define "error" as "not what I wanted". It is pointless to discuss under those conditions. The close was good, and this DRV is now veering into the (lack of) merit of the article— something for which this is not the proper venue. — Coren(talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really now if it was 100% delete opinions but none of the deletion criteria were justified then any deletion review would ultimately note that criteria were not satisfied. That's all that's being done here, pointing out the criteria for deletion were not satisfied. I've actually given about a dozen sources so far showing several articles that not only treated it as a defined concept, but actually treated it as a fact on the ground. You can go back and forth claiming there was no consensus about whether there is a New Cold War, but an article shouldn't be deleted because the subject itself is disputed. Many Wikipedia articles exist on disputed subjects, often times the dispute itself justifies having an article. In this case pointing out various sources saying there isn't a New Cold War does not establish any basis for deletion, in fact, it's basically an argument in favor of keeping the article. Clearly the subject of a New Cold War is notable enough to be a matter of discussion by high-ranking politicians, media pundits, and books. Also I've already pointed out several books that while New Cold War is not in their title, still deal with the subject of a New Cold War. In other words your justification for deletion and Economicst's argument for it are both shaky and just plain wrong. It is not appropriate behavior to impose your opinion on the rest of the community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn --
an interpretation of current usage" of the term "technicolor" in particle physics literature. This deletion should be overturned not merely because there was no consensus for such an action, but because Coren's closing argument was fundamentally flawed. John254 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse, per reasoning I already gave little more than a day ago. Coren's close was a good one, and justified by both the discussion and wiki policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; at the end of the day, this comes down to
Strongly endorse deletion; this whole article is a gross
WP:SYN violation. There was clear consensus in the discussion for deletion despite the fact that a few of those arguing for keeping were more shrill than the rest of us. Besides the SYN problem, there is the problem that the article title has no proper referent. At one point in the discussion I posted the results of my research into scholarly uses of the phrase. I only listed the books with titles that included the phrase "New Cold War," and even that extremely limited search turned up ten totally different uses of the expression. These different uses varied from describing US intervention in central America to describing tension between China and the former Soviet Uniion, to discussing terrorism and religious nationalism. I pressed those who supported keeping the article to provide at least one single peer reviewed scholarly source that used the phrase as something more than a sensationalistic catchphrase and nobody could do it. So there is no evidence of any agreed upon usage of "new cold war" in academia. Besides all this, there is a severe problem that the article is being used as a crystal ball and a soapbox for a particular political perspective. I have seen this problem before where users create what amounts to an original essay out of a synthesis of various articles that they use to soapbox a particular point of view. That is simply put not the purpose of an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There are different uses for many phrases and terms. That doesn't constitute an argument for deletion. Also crystal ball did not apply there and Coren should have understood this to be the case. As far as soapbox I fail to see how it was so, though I presume this involves some nonsense about hawkish neocons. All the things cited in the article have been identified as being aspects of a New Cold War. If the sources failed to verify this then you need only look at sources I've provided here to see this does not mean the claims were not verifiable. Beyond that all the information was provided in an objective manner which does not suggest a POV. Considering your arguments here constitute the bulk of deletion calls I think that provides a very clear indication there was not a consensus for delete as your arguments are easily debunked by merely looking at the article and examining the subject. Far from there being non consensus I think it's clear there was a consensus for keep as all deletion arguments showed an underlying ignorance of deletion criteria, the article, and the subject itself. I can only assume this happens because people browse the AfD area and insert their opinion haphazaradly after making swift evaluations of the arguments and skimming the article, perhaps only reading the introduction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, crystal ball did apply, as well as
WP:SYN and several other arguments that have been discussed to death by now. The bottom line is that the sources don't support this as a notable category itself; what they show is that it is a sensational catchphrase that can be used for various different meanings. This has nothing to do with "hawkish neocons" that I am aware of. It is actually most of the "keep" arguments that showed an ignorance of our deletion criteria (and of our policies here generally), which is why many of them were appropriately ignored by the closing administrator. And I agree with you that people browse haphazardly and don't read carefully before voting; a lot of such readers voted "keep." csloat (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Update - the most recent vote (from someone who didn't even participate on the original AfD) on this page is a case in point of what I mean). csloat (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Please note that this is not a second deletion discussion; this review is specifically to determine whether or not User:Coren closed the deletion discussion correctly, reflecting the consensus (or lack thereof) that was (or was not) determined during the deletion discussion. user:j (aka justen) 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- let me be more clear then: I strongly endorse Coren's closure of the deletion discussion with the result of delete, which strongly reflected the preponderance of actual arguments discussed during the deletion discussion. It also was the decision most consistent with Wikipedia policy, as I noted above. Excellent work, Coren. csloat (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the bold from your comment here, lest it be mistaken for a separate opinion on the matter. I'm sure neither of us would want a mistake of that magnitude to occur. ;) (As a side note, and in all sincerity, it may be helpful to move your comments here into your comments above, for the benefit of the closer of this review?) Take care, user:j (aka justen) 23:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. In determining consensus, the closing admin is supposed to evaluate arguments and not just count votes. Per the instructions, arguments that amount to likeit/don'tlikeit should be ignored. Whether arguments represent valid interpretations of policy should be considered. Often a decision must be made whether an article can plausibly be brought within policy, and the admin must make that call. Creation of a dab page (pointing to particular books or article sections) with the title of a deleted article is not generally treated as recreation of the deleted page, so is not forestalled by the deletion decision. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you even read anything that's been said? The argument for overturning this deletion is that the admin's reason for deletion was not in keeping with policy. The editor who deleted the article actually said above that he/she did so after discounting arguments saying the subject was discussed in newspapers and articles. In other words, this editor basically admitted to discounting arguments given on the verifiability and notability of the subject. That completely contradicts established policy. Verifiability and notability of a subject is always a reason for keeping an article and should always be taken into consideration. This fact alone suggests the deletion was completely invalid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assiduously read everything that has been said in both the original deletion debate and in this review, hence my opinion. The deletion was within process. Original research that uses verifiable sources is good quality original research, but it is still not what Wikipedia does. As for notability, the term has no set meaning, none of which are particularly notable. One should not take uses of a term to mean X and use them to establish the notability of a term to mean Y. That is what I take "semantically transparent" to mean. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Title of ABC News front page / Associated Press article today: Russia "Not Afraid’ of a New Cold War. Whether anyone thinks we're really in a "cold war" or not, even as a concept, a "new cold war" is part of the mainstream reliable sources lexicon and scrutiny.[19] And oh yes, there was no clear consensus to delete. --Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the article mentions "new Cold War" it doesn't define the concept of "New Cold War". "Cold War" is a state of affairs per wordnet.princeton.edu "a state of political hostility between countries using means short of armed warfare." So basically the term new Cold War means a new state of political hostility and not Cold War II. Not even this "new state of political hostility" has been confirmed or become consensus among political analysts. That's why it was offered to TransWiki the term, Why not create the article Post Cold War tensions between Russia and NATO? We are trying to create sensation and awe with an article entitled as New Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 August 2008
Comment. At the enormous risk of sounding like a broken record, please remember that this is not a second deletion discussion. This review is specifically and exclusively to discuss the accuracy of the closure. There is no need to debate notability or prominence; the only issue here is whether or not User:Coren was correct in his determination that there was a consensus to delete or a case of original research which could only be cured by deletion. user:j (aka justen) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the use of any of this? The article has already been recreated. I give up, two weeks wasted is too much time. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the subject is notable and verifiable considering those are the two major things to look at when making a deletion decision is legitimate. Fact is Coren actually admitted to ignoring arguments for notability and verifiability when making the decision and those were the majority of the arguments for keeping the article. Furthermore pointing out that in spite of what was contained in the article ample sources exist to support the notability and verifiability of the subject also serves as legitimate in deletion review.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My concerns are undoubtedly fairly obvious through my comments above. The article was not synthesis, was not composed of original research, and it was on a notable topic. With all that in mind, I find it interesting that, thus far, 12 out of 24 participants in this review are presumably uninvolved in this dispute and did not participate in the AfD. Among the 12 "involved" of us, I think this has become a second deletion discussion, exactly mirroring the result of the original AfD: no consensus. Among those 12 uninvolved participants here, though, the picture is a bit clearer: eight have !voted to overturn, while four have !voted to endorse. Of the four endorsing, each shared the closing administrator's view that the article contained synthesis. Of the eight advocating the decision being overturned, several expressed, in very strong words, their disagreement with that assertion and their belief that the closing administrator substituted his opinion for the lack of consensus at the deletion discussion. I believe this deletion (and, hopefully, undeletion) process has been contentious and unnecessarily complicated, but it is what it is. I hope and expect that the administrator who closes this review will look closely at the viewpoints expressed here, and reach the same conclusion I have, that there was no consensus for delete reached in that original discussion and that the closing should be overturned as such. user:j (aka justen) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC) updated: 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- Plenty of sources going back several years. Its a valid topic for an article, and it seems competently written and adequately sourced. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I admit to being biased, having been one of the people calling for deletion. But in all honesty, I can't see anything wrong with Coren's actions, procedurally. I would, in fact, welcome the existence of the disambiguation page I proposed, but the decision was taken on the article as written, and seemed fair. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the few days since the Afd several things happened that are relevant to the initial Afd discussion among them Russian president stating "Russia is not afraid of new Cold War" and mountains of articles discussing the prospects of a new Cold War see for example [20][21]Hobartimus (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is a semantic distinction between New Cold War (a proper name) and new Cold War, an adjective plus the existing proper name. If someone were to describe the discussions between Ukraine and Russia as a new Crimean War, that would not justify us in posting an article on some New Crimean War. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or consider "New Watergate." That headline appears on a regular basis, referring to the scandal du jour, and has 10K GHits, let alone significant pre-Web usage. Yet, I would oppose an article on the subject, even a list of various usages, as unencyclopedic. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument about lower case and upper case is the most ridiculous red herring being trotted out here. The fact is in the post-Cold War era talk or another Cold War is pretty constant with most either putting the opposing power as Russia or China or both. The Cold War part is always capitalized and that's the important part. There many claiming there exists a new international competition on the level of the Cold War or that the world is headed for one. Given the amount of discussion on this subject, it's notable and verifiable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lower case "n" makes a world of difference. The "new Cold War" the media is mentioning is simply a new "state of political hostility between countries using means short of armed warfare" (Princeton), it doesn't mean Cold War II. Only few articles mention "New Cold War". That difference is very important and it will have to be noted and made clear once this article is recreated. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update on sources - A list of only a small percentage of articles about the concept of a "new Cold War" published since the AfD ended.
Overturn- The decision was made far too hastily and stemmed from disagreements over the current situation in Georgia. Certain individuals seem to be following their own agenda, proposing the deletion of these articles on the basis of their individual views and not on the basis of the content of the articles. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a matter for DRV to consider; we are only interested in the conduct of the closing admin. If it were, Justen's massive removal of discussion from the AfD would be at least equally questionable. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original nomination of both neo and new cold war was made by a user who, for some unfathomable reason, thought, erroneously, that the articles had been created as a result of the current conflict in Ossetia, disregarding attempts to prove otherwise. Despite discussion on the article and possible comprises to deletion due to noteworthy issues raised therein, the discussion was closed before consensus had been reached. The fact that a merge of neo and new cold wars had been proposed not long before the deletion of the new cold war article should also be taken into account, and could have been one of the motives for the hasty decision to delete the article. The merge discussion in itself could have provided a valid basis upon which consensus could have been reached, removing the less notable "Neo Cold War" and merging into the more notable "New Cold War". There were two AfD discussions, and one merge discussion taking place. Consensus should have been reached on all three issues, as they cover one and the same. The admin has acted hastily and with poor judgement, seeking not to reach consensus or a closure of discussions, let alone comprise, but simply remove these articles from Wikipedia. This entire situation has been mismanaged from the start. I would strongly suggest replacing the article and resuming discussion on both deletion and merge with neo CW, as well as merging the different discussions and deletions into one. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as a reasonable conclusion from the discussion. The major alternatives discussed were transwikiing (my preference) and conversion into a dab page, but both can still be done; the page is not salted. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you believe there was a clear consensus to delete from that deletion discussion? user:j (aka justen) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficiently clear to be within the range of admin discretion.
WP:SYNTH. No consensus might also have been defensible; but it is not mandatory. If it had been no consensus, I would not have come here; but I would have considered renomination. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I think what you've just recognized is the key problem: if you concede there was the reasonable and (at least on your part) uncontestable possibility the deletion discussion could have been interpreted and closed as no consensus, then I believe that's quite incompatible with it being closed as it was. The synthesis argument was argued by a small minority of the participants, and was dismissed out of hand: synthesis requires using a source to make assertion alpha, and a source to make assertion beta, and then inserting unsourced assertion charlie (as original research). The article didn't do that: every single assertion was sourced. The problem here is that a "no consensus" deletion discussion was closed based on an error in "admin[istrator] discretion." If you believe there is the possibility that the deletion discussion could have been reasonably interpreted either way, I think you're missing the point of exactly what "no consensus" means. user:j (aka justen) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken on what
WP:SYNTH is. Saying A (sourced) and B (sourced) in such a way as to lead the reader to conclude C (unsourced, and with no evidence that the sources for A and B would agree) is synthesis; indeed, the paragraph began with an example which did that. It is sufficient that it "expresses [your] opinion"; how it does so is secondary. You are still more mistaken on what consensus is. If we required that there be no possible argument that it wasn't consensus, we might as well require unanimity, or the liberum veto, which would reduce WP "from a juridical anomaly into a farce", as one historian of the Austrian Empire desribed its last days. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 18:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was within reasonable admin discretion. At time of deletion, the page was a self-evident dictionary definition that "New Cold War is a phrase used by the media to describe" followed by several different descriptions all of which boiled down to 'a recent conflict that is similar to the last Cold War'. The sources provided in the discussion and here document that the phrase is used - but no one is disputing that point. The relevant question is whether any of the sources are substantive enough to be the basis of a proper encyclopedia article that does not cross the line into original research. Reviewing the sources makes it clear that unlike Cold War, there is not yet consensus on what the "new Cold War" is, who it's with or anything useful. (In particular, the sources do not support the assertion made above that "new Cold War" is a term with a settled definition or scope.) Right now, it's nothing more than a catchphrase being used by journalists. There might be enough here to support a Wiktionary entry but not a Wikipedia article. Rossami(talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is there enough reliable sources (hundreds, actually) on the concept of a "new Cold War" to write an article, already Mark MacKinnon's entire recent book The New Cold War has been written on the subject. --Oakshade (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That (as the AfD brought out) is one of many books and papers, which have been written on many subjects, using that title. For example, MacKinnon's book is about the
color revolutions, as should be obvious from its subtitle; the deleted article had no place for them. The article was always purely verbal; that's why it belongs on Wiktionary. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not finding any reliable sources on this concept (much less the "hundreds" alleged). Many sources (including that one) use this phrase but not as a single consistent or coherent topic. What we have are hundreds of examples of journalists using a catchphrase to draw attention to their topic du jour. Mere examples of usage of a word or phrase is not, all by itself, evidence that we can write an encyclopedia article on a topic. I'm sorry but no change of opinion at this time. Rossami(talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*Endorse deletion & Coren's closing rationale. This "new Cold War" is a mere rhetorical expression; a comparison, a parallel, and a simplistic attention-generating hyperbole. As such, it may merit a single-sentence mention in an article on "West"-Russia relations after the fall of Communism, and nothing more. In principle, an encyclopedic article could be written about this expression's usage — provided some serious publications -academic ones, not your odd book or newspaper article- have analyzed the usage itself. The deleted article went beyond a dictionary definition (Wiktionary is that way) to include an original synthesis of different press articles & books. It even started with "The New Cold War[1] is a term" (notice the capitalized proper name), while the BBC News article used as reference (with the clear title of 'Cold war' comparisons on Georgia, 16 August 2008 - mmhh... 'Cold War' comparisons... I'm so tempted to start a fine Allegations of Cold War series-) mentioned perceptions of a "new Cold War", or a "Cold War-style" face off, and a reporter cautioning against Cold War comparisons. — All comparisons, parallels, and simplistic attention-generating hyperbole in non others than The Sun and the Daily Mail. Regards, Ev (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems some people here aren't paying attention to the central issue. There is no criteria for deletion that mentions a subject not having a single clear definition or starting with lower case in common media mentions. Really, all criteria for deletion stem from notability. To this extent the statement of the deleting admin here should be considered:
I did simply discount the keeps that were based on "I've seen it in the media/in a book title" as they do not address the primary problem of original synthesis.
If you look at the AfD this basically means Coren discounted nearly all of the arguments given for keeping the article. What's more noting something's usage in the media and literature constitutes an argument for a subject's verifiable notability using reliable sources. In other words, the arguments Coren discounted are arguing for what is basically the key issue in any deletion decision, the notability of the subject. Coren ignores an argument on the key basis for article deletion and instead deleted it by citing a
problem with the article. I do not like the term "New Cold War" myself, but I recognized rather clearly that this was a notable subject which could be verified by reliable sources. As such the article met all the crucial criteria for inclusion. The argument of the original nominator was that it constitued a crystal ball or neologism, both of which were seriously flawed as it is not a neologism and it was not making a predicition or even asserting something as fact. Most argument for deletion reiterated this argument or made irrelevant statements about it not having a single clear definition, which ignores the notability of the subject itself. One thing which is commonly agreed is the idea of a large global struggle following the Cold War has been a matter of frequent discussion with several considering there to be one ongoing and others arguing that such a situation doesn't exist. As such it constitutes notability solely by the matter of it being widely discussed. This argument was given on several occasions, but apparently ignored and Coren did not address they key issue of whether the subject itself was notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
To be very clear, in my comment above I am explicitly endorsing the closer's decision to discount those opinions. The relevant question is not whether the phrase exists - lots of words and phrases exist. The only relevant question is whether an encyclopedia article can be written on the subject. The concept as you define it above (any "large global struggle following the Cold War") is too diffuse to substantiate a properly sourced article. None of the other sources presented are able to substantiate a prospective article either in my opinion. There is no single subject behind this catchphrase at this time. Of course, that may change in a few years. We'll have to wait and see. Rossami(talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate mischaracterizes deletion policy by attempting to boil it all down to notability.
WP:NOT, content forking and articles that contain prohibited syntheses. In this case, the administrator found that trying to cover every meaning of "N/new Cold War" would render the article an indiscriminate collection of information, while concentrating on one meaning would give one view undue weight. Moreover, the fact that it uses sources that talk about a Russian-China "new Cold War" to support a thesis on a Russian-American "New Cold War" makes it original research. The article is caught on a fork: the solution to one policy problem causes another policy violation, and any article that overcame the problems would owe little debt to the deleted article. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse Even if we made an article that said, " 'New Cold War' is a term defined by the news media to describe any tension or rivalry between nations that does not result in armed conflict...", it would have to have a source...and where is that source? This turns it into a wiktionary definition, rather than an encyclopedia article. And it turns it into OR again, since that's a synthesis of all kinds of different definitions to this over the years since the end of the Cold War. Hires an editor (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, doesn't matter if the current article had too much OR that is something editors of the article deals with not AFD. Secondly a "New Cold War" (or "2nd Cold War" or whatever) is getting a lot of media time at the moment, also this is a concept that has been around a lot longer than just now (such as WWIV). MathmoTalk 02:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The existence of sources that use a phrase is indeed irrelevant to whether an article on it should be kept. Sources that discuss the phrase itself are what is needed. Closer was right to disregard comments based merely on wide usage without evidence of material that could make this more than a dictionary definition. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's relevant enough to argue for its deletion but not enough to argue for it being kept. Many of the delete opinions and the deleting admin as well argued based on media reports that the subject was not clearly defined and therefore should be deleted. Yet somehow the deleting admin did not consider those media reports enough to argue against its deletion, only enough to argue for it. Let's be clear on the problem. Discounting almost every opinion given for keeping the article because they cited media reports and books which not only use the term, but several which describe it and define it as a contest between the U.S. and Russia is simply ridiculous and is one reason why the deletion should be overturned. It's also complete hypocrisy to then cite media reports in justifying deletion. I argued that the article should include other things the term is used for, but focus primarily on Russia because other articles on similar subjects do the same thing. A subject can include more than one thing but be focused primarily in one area. As such including other uses is not making it an indiscriminate collection of information, but acknowledging that while one use is most common there are other uses that are not notable enough or different enough to have their own independent article but should be mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advocate, see
necessary and sufficient conditions. Sources (in existence, even if not in the article) are necessary for a keepable article, but they're not enough. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I looked again at the AfD and found most deletion advocates made completely ridiculous arguments for deletion that belie a general ignorance or the article itself. Most seemed to think the article was centered entirely or mostly on the recent conflict in Georgia, which it wasn't, several argued that because it has not been used exclusively to refer to relations between the U.S. and Russia following the Cold War it shouldn't be an article, and yet others seemed to think the article was actually saying there was a New Cold War then argued that there wasn't and said therefore it should be deleted. None of these arguments are legitimate or have any basis in policy. The only legitimate argument given was crystal ball, but that one falls completely flat from the fact this wasn't asserting a future event, but describing a perception of recent events. Nowhere did any editor make the argument Coren did and the argument itself was simply wrong. The argument was that the article was "an interpretation" of current usage, which is not accurate. It's not an interpretation of usage, it's a description of what the term commonly refers to when used by the media and several authors in the post-Cold War era particularly in the past few years. I've pointed out a number of areas its used in as it concerns Russia and not simply as a possibility or fear, but as a reality. This is beside the fact the possibility itself is widely discussed. Mind you, again, I'm opposed to the use of this term to describe these events, I think it's naive and silly, but I also understand it has been used for several years to refer to relations between the U.S. and Russia and has well-established notability. I'm not biased towards the subject of the article, I'm biased against it. However, I think even concepts and ideas I find ridiculous should be given articles if they are sufficiently notable, and this one is.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to get it. Read
this more carefully and think about how it might apply to this article. Citing more sources that use the term, as someone else said, is just shooting yourself in the foot -- there are lots of uses of the term, all different, and nobody writes anything connecting these various uses except for Wikipedia -- that is an original synthesis of ideas (however ridiculous they might be). An article in a RS discussing the various uses of the term does not appear to exist. csloat (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That might be legitimate if this was claiming there was a New Cold War, but it's referring to a term or concept. So citing multiple articles involving this term isn't synthesis. Also, several articles exist that do tie together the various uses of it towards Russia such as these: [22][23][24]. I can tell you right now quite a few sources can be found linking the missile defense, Georgia, Kosovo, and disputes over energy together under the umbrella of a New Cold War. So your argument on synthesis is wrong.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What concept? And how many of your "sources" address that concept, which ever one you choose? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a post-Soviet collapse global confrontation between Russia and the United States. That is the most notable usage of the term beating out its use towards China, Iran, and Islamic militants. Also they do address it rather clearly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. You cite three sources.
One says "the hint of a Cold War"
One doesn't discuss any sort of Cold War; the phrase is in the on-line comments and the headline.
One comments on a media tsuris about the phrase, in order to deny its reality and importance compared with the ccnflict he really wants to discuss.
In short, therefore, you are claiming that we should have an article on the basis of headline writers and bloggers; and I presume these are your best sources. Perhaps we should add a clause on that to
WP:NOT, but I don't think we have to. Please stop wasting our time. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse Deletion. I could not agree more with Guy. Regards, Asteriontalk 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Could I have a history only undelete here please? JASpencer (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why? Protonk (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Not to be combative, but what is the purpose behind the request? Protonk (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
presumably to see if there is material suitable for merging or improvement. Looking, there is little there, but the links might be useful DGG (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have been more clear. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Requesting temporary review with the article restored to a userspace so work can be done on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. I'm making this request for the creator, Nathanvoite. The user wishes to edit, possibly re-write the article to Wikipedia standards. I was making many edits using Huggle at the time I added the CSD tag to the article and don't remember anything about it and figure it wouldn't hurt to bring the article back in a userspace and give him a chance to fix whatever was wrong with it. If it can't be added to their namespace without them making the request here feel free to add it to mine so they can copy it from there. Oroso (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
