Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 27

27 October 2011

new New World Order (politics)

new New World Order (politics) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I remember of a page on this topic about six months ago which I consulted after a talk discussing the notion of post-New World Order at a University in Taiwan. I have now found a mirror of the original article new New World Order (politics) . I am no expert but it seems very well put to me. Does this very aggregation constitues Original Research? Actually if the article had been published elsewhere we could not reproduce it per copyright infringement. I see only five people discussed the deletion of this entry and most where coming from the French discussion where the article was legitimitaly closed as the term has no notability or third-party coverage in the French language... I do not have the time to review the Frech discussion but as for the English article, I submit emotional snowballing has biased its discussion into an unfair assessment. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - Deletion Review is not for cases of "I disagree". If you want to request a copy of the article be placed in your user-space to attempt to work out the problems (though in my opinion the very nature of the article is inherently problematic with WP:SYNTH concerns raised at the AfD, and an article that tries to make hay out of an "Obama bowing controversy" is a non-starter), any admin can do that. There was nothing remotely wrong with closing an AfD as delete that ran 5-0. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I mean that: the article needs to be wikified rather than dismissed as a whole. I am ready to do that. Also, as a journalist, I had heard a lot and covered the "bowing controversy" although I did not know it had a name. It was quite famous as a discussion in East Asia. Here are a few references from the web at large and from the googles news archive with clear citations from Fox News, MSNBC and others. If this section must be deleted then, why not do it in the wikifying? Besides, although it is in the norm to give five people the right to deny an entry it is neither morally fair nor scientifically legitimate: truth is not democratic. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please ask the deleting admin to place the article in your userspace so that you can improve it in the WP:INCUBATOR. Dualus (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• before I do that I need a wikibuddy to give her/his opinion on what is original and what is not. To me there is no OR in this article, and the ips voting in the French review have gone as far as saying the deletion was a cognitive bias of Lock-in namely one primer gives hs opinion with emotional intensifiers and others follow. I am not sure it is that, but I cannot see any original conclusion being made out of the synthesis: namely I cannot see anything being said in this article that has not been said by a third-party before, which means to me it passes the OR test. If you move it to my user page I'll do my best to improve it thoughGrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• 'Restore, improve, and possibly have another AfD. DR can reverse for any reason that has consensus. Wikipedia is NOT BURO. That consensus may have changed, that there were factors overlooked in the discussion, and t=people judged without thinking it through, are all good reasons for reversal. Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following Deletion process. A close that does not fairly evaluate the topic is an eror in everyone's judgement, and can be reversed. It's only equitable: if people can bring repeated AfDs of a keep decision they dislike, there has to be some equivalent way to challenge a delete decision. Whether this is true in the present case, however, is the question. It would appear to me from the recovered article that the phrase is sufficiently used to justify an article, and that the people at the AfD may have been overhasty in judging it OR. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• DGG, I see you are a librarian, would you help me objectively find out whatever this article has said that may not have been said by any third party source? After a thorough reading of the entry I see that the only possible OR may come from the first paragraph entitled "scholarly overview" in which the editor(s) have hastily asserted that the Obama discourse pursued the Brzezinski doctrine without sourcing this statement. There is also a parenthesis comment which could be suppressed. Apart from that, tha article totally passes the OR test to me: namely I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse (yes, if you spam Jimbo Wales, you catch his fleas as well, in a rather mixed metaphor). Original discussion was unanimous and correct (linking e.g. the Obama bow controversy with the new new world order is WP:OR or at best something that doesn't appear in reliable sources: [1] and the same search in News, News Archive, Scholar, and regular Google). Userfy and turn into a completely different article if you think you can make something good out of it: but don't put this into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• well I'm happy to meet you Mr/Ms Flea. I don't consider it a spam but merely " being bold". As per the bowing section why don't we just cut it out of the article then? My argument is that no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out. This means the article passes OR. Cheers to you Mr. Flea --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: I actually find it very rude of yours to call it a spam when it has a legitimate goal, is a short and clear edit and is even recommended by the user... but you are free to call a request a spam --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)