Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cold War

New Cold War

New Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. This article certifies that a New Cold War exists between Russia and USA just because some TV pundits and journalists are trumpeting this expression. They are using it because it is a catchy term but it is still a 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)

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)

/\ User:J is the article's author. "The article states that "'New Cold War' is a term used to describe a perceived rekindling of conflict." That's a clear violation of both WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• Strong keep. The article is approaching a dozen verifiable and reliable sources (and could easily hold many more) defining the term and addressing the topic, none of which involve television pundits as far as I know. At least two published books carry the same name and discuss the topic. To address your "neologism" concern and concerns of recentism, please define what you personally consider to be "new." Take a look at a Google News Archive search for the term. Prominent coverage of the topic goes back to at least 2003, with a number of notable, verifiable, reliable sourced articles from 1999 and earlier, as well. As to your personal point of view on the topic, it's not a topic for discussion here. And this isn't the particular place for you to bring up any problems you may have with Second dot-com bubble.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)