Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold War II

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. There is a clear consensus to keep. The WP:AT questions is referred to the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War II[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it stands, this article is overwhelmingly disputed and has been subject to massive debate and controversy within Wikipedia and especially on the talk page of the article for over a year now. The latest debate was on the article's talkpage: Talk:Cold_War_II#RfC:_Accuracy_of_the_title. There, most of the users expressed that the title was not accurate and should be merged into another article such as Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin or even NATO-Russia relations.

Many users, myself included have stated that this article in itself is moot and way too soon and should either be deleted altogether!

I have only heard a few news sources call this a new cold war, but this is far from a frozen conflict and that's what most are saying.

Here are the reasons why I along with most would see this as not another Cold War:

1. We still have much better diplomatic relations with China, Russia and Iran as opposed to the actual Cold War where civilian travel to these countries were prohibited and due to NATO and the West and the Communists being at each others throats for the most part.

2. Civilian travel is allowed in all of the following countries I have listed, China and Russia except for Iran and the fact that neither side has for the most part shut itself off from one another I.E. like with the Iron curtain and the Berlin Wall and instead we allow media from both sides to come in shows that The United States and Russia are more along the lines of allies with their friendship as of current dangling by a thread rather than bitter enemies like back in 1946-1989!

3. As another user by the name of Kdowns1453 said before me, The Cold War took place in a bipolar world, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the two undisputed superpowers competing for economic, ideological, military, and diplomatic influence on multiple continents and, at times, veering very close to direct war with one another.

4. This article essentially covers Vladimir Putin's foreign policy and international reactions to it. As it stands, it simply does not make a strong case for the use of the term, and it might be better served with another title for the time being.

That said, this is no new Cold War!! Way too soon to call it that and therefore it safe to believe it's time for a support or oppose vote to either keep the article or delete it! Voting to move or Redirect the article with or to another one is also on the table for voting! None of the less, a vote must be held on this!!

I have stated my argument on why it should be deleted already and I essentially speak for a great deal of users who support the deletion of this article! Regards! Kirby (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Something does not have to exist or be proved true to have a Wikipedia article (see Loch Ness Monster), so it doesn't matter whether or not it really is another Cold War, it only matters that the topic has been discussed in broad detail. The article should make it clear what the WP:RS state and the controversy of whether or not there is a second Cold War. A disagreement over the title is also not cause for deletion. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I digress! The argument that —Мандичка made is an invalid one! What was just said by him with all due respect only legitimatizes that this article it should either be deleted altogether or merged into another article such as these two: Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin or NATO-Russia relations. The fact that some of his sources, at least one of them even talks about the world not going toward a Cold War, but World War III: [12] hampers his argument further! I will give him credit for gathering sources, but there are an equal amount of news outlets and articles from them that talk about the world heading toward WWIII rather than a Second Cold War.

[13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. That's just to list, but a few!

That said, I believe that this article is moot and should be deleted! Hopefully others will come here and way in their positions on this debate!Kirby (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You already proposed the article for deletion. You are attempting to !vote twice. I have struck your second one. Additionally, a World War III would certainly be different than a Cold War II, so that argument is invalid. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — impossible to see any clear valid reason for deletion in highly moot and abstruse verbose "statements" (are we in a court hearing here?) by Kirby. I would also recommend that he speak for oneself rather than for "Many users" and "along with most" -- utterly preposterous and presumptuous claims. His views on the validity of the term (referenced by numerous sources) is his personal opinion that carries no weight.Axxxion (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most ridiculous deletion proposals I've ever seen, based entirely on one user's original research and personal opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not True: "most of the users expressed that the title was not accurate and should be merged".
Most users did not !vote that the article should be merged. Hollth was ambivalent. Kingofaces43, Orser67 and I suggested it should be renamed. Volunteer Marek and Markbassett !voted that it should be merged. — Ríco 15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't believe that it should be merged with another article! Le'ts wait till others get here! Kirby (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, although I don't see how something this big could be merged into another article. — Ríco 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keeby101: This is not based on !votes but arguments citing policy. You have not demonstrated a valid reason to delete the article and it's been shown the article meets the WP:GNG required. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Over 100 refs. I'm not sure what policy would justify removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That *is* a terrible title, and I expected the article to be terrible WP:NEO, but it actually seems to be a pretty reasonable article. I therefore lean keep, though I am open to the notion that renaming and even merges are possible says forwards AFD doesn't seem like a very good venue for that discussion. Artw (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Artw that the title is a terrible WP:NEO, and may well be renamed in due course, but that does not alter the fact that passes WP:GNG. It could be considered a subarticle of Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin but that article is bursting at the seams and has already quite rightly spawned a number of subarticles. Not a WP:POVFORK, so no grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless its severely reduced in scope. When we created the article last year, it was about the term "Cold War II", which is all it should stick to. The problem is we have better places for much of the historic information that is on the article now, mainly the article Russia–United States relations. The number of references and reliability of the sourcing shouldn't matter if the material isn't specifically referencing the term "Cold War II". We can reference what Francis Fukuyama said in 1992 in End of History, but he wasn't talking about Cold War II. Move/incorporate information into the many "See also" articles like Russia–United States relations and the ever in need of work NATO–Russia relations, or delete it and redirect to either of those.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Deletion is not cleanup, you cannot say that it should be deleted unless it is fixed up. Nor is a lousy title (WP:LOUSYTITLE) a reason for deletion. Either the subject is notable or it isn't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, that its an argument to avoid, the trouble is that its two separate issues. The term is notable, like you said it could be a subarticle, certainly its own section on another article, and separately the text of the article is sourced but not actually related to the term. What I'm saying is that I do see an option to keep an article at the title "Cold War II", just not the current one. I think the lazy route might be to rename the article, and have a disambiguation page here, but better to try to move what can be used on other articles to those articles. So too I agree with what Artw (talk · contribs) said about merging being an option, I just think that Delete gives us the best a chance to do that.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the events fit under other articles, e.g. syria, ukraine, etcetera; and the overall strategy is just the policy of Putin. I do not see that there is an ongoing event equivqalent to the iron curtain or berlin wall of decades-long duration, nor does this seem to be overall anything other than logical assertion of power on the borders. Nasty maybe, but not an ideological or longstanding thing and not near the level of Cold War where Korea and Vietnam were just sideparts of it. Mostly, just show me the cites where this is the WP:COMMONNAME in use rather than a catchy WP:NEO that some folks use. I think merger the bits elsewhere and delete this article is the best course. Markbassett (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term is extensively used. It's just that this article only had sources describing it as an ongoing event. Therefore, I've now added sources to its definition that describe it as a possible (or very unlikely) future event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW everyone! There is the vote option of Redirect on the table! Just pointing that out to Artw,Patrick and other users who will be participating in this debate!

I am not sure if Artw will change his position from Keep to Redirect, but I do hope he reconsiders! :)

Finally, just because I expressed this article to be deleted on the talk page of the article itself and opened up this AFD debate does not disqualify or render my Delete vote null in anyway! Regards! Kirby (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. For fuck's sake, read the instructions. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from what i have said, i would like to note that i find the position of those questioning the title and the very existence of this article quite hypocritical in view of the fact that it had been recently decided (overlooked by me) that the article Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition be kept! All the info in that article is duplication; and the heading is a mere invention! And it is not that it is simply not sourced, but, more importantly, it presumes the existence of something that is highly disputable too! (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition) Axxxion (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This "second cold war" is not happening, so perhaps this is WP:Crystal? RailwayScientist (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RailwayScientist: WP:CRYSTAL generally refers to events and things like that (Fast & Furious 12, Planned Battle of Mosul (2015) etc). There are many things that are not happening or do not exist that have articles on WP. There are enough WP:RS discussing the concept of a second Cold War (why it's happening, why it's not happening, why it's likely to happen, etc) that it meets the notability guidelines. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and instead launch a renaming discussion as the original creator of the article, I am willing to concede ground and room for significant change concerning the article itself but I feel outright deleting it would overstep the mark and remove a lot of relevant content concerning the focus of international relations on wikipedia. These events with Russia and the West and not "original research" or a self-made hypothesis or exaggeration, they represent an enormous and significant shift in the scope of relations between the involved parties and global politics as a whole. This is too big to be simply dismissed. The two Ukraine crises, the georgia conflict, the Syrian civil war's escalation into a proxy confict, all of these things knit together into a new and concrete narrative of a new Russian standoff against the Western world, albeit in entirely different conditions to the Cold War. Resultantly, the media have thrown this term about enormously and it is thus not a fictional commentary. To delete this page, or to redirect it to something else where the subject is squashed in, is to seriously under-represent and dismiss a topic which is making global headlines on a near daily basis. Perhaps a title change debate is in order, why not? I understand back when I wrote this I may have jumped the gun a bit. Nonetheless I stand by the fact it is notable of coverage, to consider deleting it? don't be daft. TF92 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and instead launch a renaming discussion - I concur. I found this article well sourced and informative. The title is somehow suspect, though. Zezen (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name of this article is clearly unacceptable given that this is a contested concept, at best. Nick-D (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not agree more with Nick-D on this one! To TF92, the original creator of the article, with all due respect, you did indeed jump the gun with the title of the Article itself! However, I still stand firm with my position on the Redirect to NATO-Russia relations and/or Foreign Policy of Vladimir Putin. Kirby (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-name is what needs to happen here. The title is highly questionable. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—appears to meet GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.