Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Great Game (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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.

New Great Game

edit

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) - Nomination withdrawn. Chenzw  Talk  11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
New Great Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete. Withdraw nomination (see below). Non-notable neologism; there are only a couple people actually using this phrase and one of them (Rashid) appears to use it practically in passing. Most of the article is a synthesis of different ideas (many undocumented) that are loosely connected together by original research, and much of which doesn't even mention "the new great game." In fact, the body of the article mentions the phrase only once, and not as a quote but as an unsourced assertion that there are three phases to the new great game. This reads like a summary of someone's doctoral dissertation, not as an encyclopedia article. csloat (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC) csloat (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there no other article about great power politics in Central Asia in the present day? I agree that this article is problematic, starting with the use of a neologism for the title. But I wonder if it could be merged, rewritten, renamed rather than deleted outright? <eleland/talkedits> 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why the relevant material couldn't be added to such an article right away without an official merge vote. It's no different from adding anything else to an article, methinks; in this case, there wouldn't be a lot to add - a paragraph on this theory would be plenty. I don't know what article to add it to though but maybe someone who worked on this article will have a suggestion... csloat (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think this has to be 'deleted. It seems that WP's coverage is deficient in this area, but I don't see how that would be improved by an article like this, which is explicitly slanted starting with the title, and does seem to stitch together unrelated sources to make its point. <eleland/talkedits> 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Commodore Sloat that this article is an original synthesis of views. Moreover, I feel that there is a reasonable risk that the sources being included in the synthesis are themselves not necessarily notable, reliable, or balanced. If material on this topic needs to be included, it should be included in existing international relations pages, rather than having a separate, unverifiable abstraction defined for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a catchphrase that, from what I can tell, is used by one author (Lutz Kleveman) and has been copied to a minor degree by a few other journalists. Other than the one book, there is nothing to substantiate the assertion that there really is an "Great Game" and even Kleveman's book uses the phrase more as a rhetorical device than as a historical concept. (The Rashid usage also seems to me to be a passing rhetorical device, not a definition of a core concept.) The synthesis here is just that, a prohibited synthesis that does not belong in the encyclopedia. Note: This page was given the benefit of doubt in the last deletion discussion. The core problems identified during the last deletion discussion remain unresolved a year later. This is a strong indicator to me that they can not be resolved and weighs heavily in my opinion that the benefit of doubt is no longer appropriate. Rossami (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New Great Game is a clearly notable subject. If the nominating editor has a problem with the article he/she should consider editing it to fix the problem instead of using AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in this case, AfD is the most appropriate fix. csloat (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (if not deleted, merge a severely restrained summary into Rashid's article; Kleverman credits him with the term.) Any statement which is not attributed to Rashid or Kleverman as part of their theory should be removed. We have other articles (surely?) on the diplomatic relations of Central Asia, and we don't need one with a central thesis to push. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Csloat is trying to repeat the same arguments used against the New Cold War, but this falls flat because not only is this topic clearly defined by numerous reliable sources, it's even dated. Here's a nice little series of sources showing exactly how legitimate this subject is and how much it is clearly not a subject of non-notable original research: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the last article cited (from the NYTimes, in case DA finds some more stray kittens) actually says is: This resulting rivalry in Central Asia, Kipling's Great Game, continued as a shadowy duel even after the Bolsheviks took over the czarist empire. This is not germane. Please stop using raw google as though it were research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You apparently didn't read the article. It was referring to the modern era following the collapse of the Soviet Union and clearly referring to it as the New Great Game. It's completely relevant and shows the term was used, defined, and dated as early as 1996. Several more recent articles: [12] [13] [14]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this were the article on Foreign affairs of Central Asia, which we badly need, that would be on point; even the comparison to Kim might be. But since the term doesn't occur anywhere in the text of the Times article (and so is neither defined nor dated), this is irrelevant cruft. The possibility of a new Great Game, at some point, has been discussed since Kipling was alive, in passing references like this (see Hopkirk's book on Central Asia, for example); none of that makes an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The title is referring to the new Great Game and it was clearly talking about that new Great Game when it was mentioning all this other stuff. What the sources indicate is csloat's argument about it being non-notable and used by hardly any authors is complete nonsense because it's been used several times. These are not passing references either, most of the articles mention it several times and are written entirely about the subject. I don't see how you can just dismiss this. Did reliable sourcing, verifiability, and notability suddenly become secondary considerations for an article?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of those new ones doesn't load. The others both say new "Great Game", which is not the same thing; indeed, if New Great Game already had a recognized meaning, they would use it. (One of them refers to the sides as the US and Europe, with Russia on the sidelines.) I regret that you appear to be insensitive to the difference, but you are unlikely to convince the rest of us that you are engaged in more than Googling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:SYN. I have no objections to merging but this title names a non-notable concept and sourcing it to five books that don't even reference each other is a clear violation. csloat (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:CIV and WP:AGF. csloat (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counter Comment: See WP:DR, especially the part on negotiations, which was not adhered to on New Cold War. Practice what you preach. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what are you referring to? There was plenty of discussion on New Cold War; there was even further discussion upon deletion review. In this case, what is there to discuss other than the implications of WP:SYN? csloat (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and cleanup. First, move this article to a less melodramatic name. That will get rid of the Neologism problem and lessen the undue weight given to certain opinions. Second, change the redirect to a permastub such as Otebig did here [15]. Third, cleanup the moved article to get rid of original research. As OR goes, it is pretty good, which suggests to me that at least some things that can be properly sourced. If this program, or something similar, ultimately fails, then it can be validly reproposed for deletion under the theory that it will never conform to policy. If there is a proper article into which to merge the salvagable material, then that can also be done. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference. First, you seem to acknowledge this is OR; all OR is prohibited on Wikipedia; there is no exception for OR that is "pretty good." Second, if we do your suggestions -- rename the article, get rid of OR, and "clean up," there is nothing left but a footnote to an article about state relations in central Asia -- which can be added to such an article whether or not this one is deleted. The AfD allows the merits of this article to be discussed; I think those calling for merge or rename are really supporting the basis for deletion. csloat (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick search with google turns up plenty of sources, plus of course the article itself. Looks good. Mathmo Talk 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm going to try to (hopefully) clear up a few things. It seems there were two original arguments for getting rid of this article. The first was that the term "New Great Game" is a "Non-notable neologism", and the second was that "This reads like a summary of someone's doctoral dissertation, not as an encyclopedia article".
First, about the term itself: as a student of Central Asian studies, I'll vouch for the fact that "the New Great Game" is a common term in the literature. Also, Rashid did not come up with the term, he's just quite fond of (over)using it. The term has been around for some time since the fall of the USSR. I've seen it used in academic articles from the early/mid 1990s. Additionally, well-sourced material can be found illustrating both the term's uses, and criticism of the term. So, the first concern, that "New Great Game" is a "Non-notable neologism" used by only one or two authors, is decidedly incorrect.
However, the second issue (that the article is mostly SYN and OR) is quite valid. Nearly all of this article was written by a now dis-active user called KazakhPol who was very interested in the politics of the region, especially power politics and the War on Terror. Unfortunately, instead of making this "New Great Game" article about the uses and history of the term "New Great Game", the first writers, including KazakhPol, had the article about the "game" itself - that is, about power politics in Central Asia. It is that "game" material which is SYN and OR.
So, the point is, the 1) regional politics and the 2) term for a method of conceptualizing those politics are two separate subjects, warranting two different articles. The material about the politics itself, which is the OR and SYN that in part caused this AfD, should be removed (and what little can be salvaged should be moved, as others have said, to a more appropriately-named article). That does not, NOT, mean this page should be renamed, merged, or deleted, because the term "New Great Game" is worthy and notable enough to have its own article, one distinct from the article's current contents. Otebig (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia editor's "voucher" as a "student" really doesn't carry a lot of weight; if the term is common "in the literature," it should be easy to actually cite the literature establishing a consistent pattern of usage to refer to a particular phenomenon. That has not been done for this article; what we have instead is an illegitimate synthesis of various uses of a phrase. Rather than "vouching" that you've seen the term used in academic articles, please cite the articles and preferably show where they talk about the phrase as a specific identifiable concept that forms part of an academic conversation (as one could easily do for a term like "cold war" or "Finlandization," for example). If you are correct about what you say, it should be easy to prove it, rather than simply saying "trust me," which is what you appear to be doing here. While I applaud your bold move of deleting the OR and leaving a stub in its place, during AfD isn't the right time to do that (as I have been warned myself), and it still doesn't seem to answer the problem of this particular neologism's notability as a concept (even with five books with that phrase in their title, there is no evidence in the amended article that the term is used the same way or even talked about as a consistent object of academic study). A phrase used as a marketing gimmick doesn't count, I think. csloat (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not even a little AFG here. Okay then, here you go...


There are also articles by S. Frederick Starr and the late John Erickson, among others, about the "game". Can we now wrap this up and start writing a good article? Otebig (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF has nothing at all to do with this; WP:V and WP:NOR is all that is relevant. You have offered clear and compelling evidence from reliable sources specifically speaking to this concept. It's too bad that it took this late into an AfD to finally produce a single such citation; I hope you will take a lead role in rewriting this article with material like this rather than the original research that has been there. csloat (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Great_Game_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138126388"