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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:06Z

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

Initially I suggested merging this page to World War III, but I'm not really sure theres anything here worth saving - just a bunch of trivia and rambling essays. The Albert Einstein quote is nice, but that's not really enough to justify a page. I now think deletion is the best course of action. Artw 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previously discussed here. Artw 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I know this is borderline for the definition of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. I think it's pretty simple: let's not worry about World War 4 until World War 3 happens. Please forgive me for not reading the whole article. YechielMan 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument is that WWIII already happened from the 1950s through the 1980s. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to World War III. There's a tiny amount of material worth saving, but someone could conceivably search for this term, so I like the idea of a redirect. --N Shar 06:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge the tiny amount of content worth saving. It's a brillian example of WP:CRYSTAL. It says in the guidelines there that it's alright writing on the United States presidential election 2008, but not on the United States presidential election 2016. This is a similar case. Cream147 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't actually crystal-balling; not everyone views "war" in a literal manner or counts the same way. The term has been used by -- and is already referenced to -- one of the leaders of the EZLN, a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, a speech by the former director of the CIA, and a notable writer for Commentary. Certainly, the page could use some cleanup, but that's not really what AFD is for. Serpent's Choice 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Maybe our future generation can edit it :P. --SkyWalker 11:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Serpent's Choice, as it fits the general criteria for notability regarding non-trivial, sourced, third party references. Plus it has already survived AFD once. 23skidoo 13:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Serpent's Choice. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Serpent's Choice, what if we look back and say WWIII has been and gone? Mathmo ^Talk 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if only for the section on The Project for the New American Century's use of the term. Very notable, verifiable, and I hear that usage thrown around every once in a while in the media. It could use a few more references, though. -- Plutor ^talk 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly that section would be better off on the PNAC page? Seems like an extreme minority usage to me, and in this context borders on a WP:NPOV violationArtw 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted above, this isn't a crystalball war account, but a report of of notable uses of this term. Sandstein 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not convinced. This article singles out a generic term and then simply catalogs various uses of it. The problem is that the term has so many different referents that the article is not really about anything at all; to the extent that it is about something it is because the article is original research, chronicalling a cultural meme that is recognized only in the head of the author. Allon Fambrizzi 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • I wholly agree that the article requires a rewrite, but that is not grounds for deletion. The sources are in agreement that the term applies to a nonconventional conflict in the post-Cold War era. That different sources apply this term in differing manners and to differing conflicts does not invalidate the need for an article. The guideline for inclusion here is WP:NEO, which this decidedly meets; many of these sources discuss the term and its application (rather than simply employing it in context). Nevertheless, I'll see if I can address the article's structure in the next few hours. Serpent's Choice 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with World War III. While this term has been used by some, it basically refers to the same concept as "WWIII": a future world war. Krimpet 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup and Keep. The concept of a fourth World War and the implications it would bring is no more implausible than the theory of evolution. If we are to delete articles because the concept behind it does not appeal to us personally, we destroy the purpose of Wikipedia. The article needs cleanup, but the concept should not be ignored because, as stated by someone above, it is used in the media on ocassion, and the implications are in need of consideration. User:Anonymous 08:28, 6 February 2007
• Keep. Not much more to add beyond what has already been said. (jarbarf) 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this would be OK to have as a redlink for a while. Heck, they didn't even call it World War I until World War II started. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete World War III hasn't occured yet, so there is no need for an article About World War IV TheDude2006 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether WWIII has or has not occurred is disputed, and the articles World War III and World War IV discuss this dispute. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it provides some interesting information. Biophys 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is quite common to apply this term consistently to the conflicts after 9/11 and it has to be clarified somewhere in Wikipedia, but it should not be redirected to the War on Terrorism, as the former term has other uses. This article is the most appropriate place for this. Also it is entirely distinct from World War III. After all, I don't see what has changed to the worse since the first nomination to review its result. Colchicum 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it has occured or not is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about upcoming elections and so on. What is relevant is whether it has been subject to some notable reflection, and it has. Colchicum 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really "quite common to apply this term consistently to the conflicts after 9/11"? I think that is an absurd statement. The article cites rather wonkish and obscure pundits and academics, hardly a basis for concluding the term is "quite common" or indeed notable at all. Allon Fambrizzi 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

• Keep for the reasons Colchicum has given. The usage connected to terrorism has become common in enough places -- if it were the Wall Street Journal alone, it would be enough, given that paper's circulation and influence. People who don't understand the term or are curious about it should be able to turn to Wikipedia for an explanation.Noroton 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sandstein and Colchicum. — CJewell (talk to me) 03:58, 11 February 2007 (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.