Deletion of New Great Game (2nd nomination)

Comment: to a specific and NPOV title, perhaps Petroleum politics in central Asia.  Article name is too general/ambiguous.  See also Petroleum politics#Pipeline diplomacy in Central Asia.  Then convert New Great Game to a |DAB page
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB)

Comment: I was |bold and made a major change to the article. As can be seen, the term is used as a title in at least five books, and it returns a lot of hits on internet searches, so we do need an article of some kind. I think a simple stub (as it is now), giving people a basic idea of what the term usually refers to, is adequate. If warranted, the removed material can be retrieved and moved, as others were saying, to more appropriate articles (such as Geopolitics in Central Asia, Petroleum politics in Central Asia, and/or Foreign relations in Central Asia). How does that sound
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)