Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second cold war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Second cold war
Original research/speculation DJ Clayworth 17:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation, not verifiable fact. Average Earthman 17:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. First option: The author has a time machine. Second option: The author has speculated. Choose! --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Didn't we already have a vote on this this just recently? Perhaps by a slightly different name? Andrewa 18:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That depends from how different you think that Second Cold War and Second cold war are. Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, thank you, that's the one, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Second Cold War as Gazpacho points out below. Different content, perhaps different authors, this is by a (very active) userid created a few days after the previous article was deleted. Although the deletion log says the vote was 6/2 for deletion, the two votes for keep were both unsigned and by the same IP. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That depends from how different you think that Second Cold War and Second cold war are. Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
- Speedy delete recreated deletia. Gazpacho 22:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it and categorize it to Original research/speculation Faethon2 22:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We don't keep original research. It's a fundamental Wikipedia policy. If you think that this article is original research, your vote should be "Delete". Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
- You dont keep them? That too sad! Please change your policy asap, because original research is very funny and usefull too. Faethon2
- Humor is no reason to keep something in an encyclopedia (that's why we have BJAODN), and it must be kept in mind that an encyclopedia's purpose is to describe the world in a factual manner, and thus is not the place to propose new theories. See Wikipedia:Original research for more information. If you wish for the policy to be changed, it's not as if somebody can just change the law and all will be different; it would have to be approved by the Wikipedia community and to be frank repealing such a fundamental, chaos-preventing policy will never get anywhere near enough support to pass. — Ливай | ☺ 04:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: See my comments on your talk page re Wikinfo. Andrewa 20:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You dont keep them? That too sad! Please change your policy asap, because original research is very funny and usefull too. Faethon2
- We don't keep original research. It's a fundamental Wikipedia policy. If you think that this article is original research, your vote should be "Delete". Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
- My vote is the same as I gave in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Second Cold War: No references provided. Original thesis. Delete. Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
- Delete, speculation. --Idont Havaname 23:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original research, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 01:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, although World War III shows us that encyclopedic articles about potential wars can exist. However, that article focuses on actual events that nearly led to WW3 in the past, the use of the term and well-known fictional scenarios involving it. This article merely speculates on various loosely related possible futures in which the world is divided up into two superpowers and thus qualifies as original research. — Ливай | ☺ 04:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, speculation. Let the author write a screenplay about the Second Cold War, sell it to Hollywood, use the proceeds to buy Wikipedia from Jimbo, and then he can define the policy here to be anything he wants (although he shouldn't count on keeping all the current editors). --BM 21:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant original research and prolly wrong-headed and rantish. zzzzzz. Wyss 22:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original speculation. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original "research". —Stormie 08:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- "God help us. In the future."-Criswell Delete. Edeans 04:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - speculation , and capitalist dreaming.. max rspct 22:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
