Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Wars


 * 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   speedy delete. CSD G7 per user request &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  22:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue Wars

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Newly coined term (according to the article), no notability, used in one work only. PROD was contested by the article's author with the rationale it defines a term expected to gain in usage with this particular definition. If the term does gain notability the article can be created then, but at present there isn't even a claim to notability for it. bonadea contributions talk 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Poor content, no references, one external link and a small amount of notability, if there was any at all. (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Note also that the book where the term occurs is forthcoming rather than published (according to the external link in the article), and the article's author has a username that indicates a possible conflict of interest. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this neologism that is not notable. If/When this becomes a term discussed by multiple, independent, reliable souces then it can be re-created. -- Flyguy649 talk 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete spam for book masquerading as an article. No evidence the term exists outside of a single use in the title of a book which it the creator of the article has a conflict of interest with.  See also WP:VSCT.  -- Jayron  32  21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism, article exists to promote one book. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete miserably fails WP:NEO. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK To Delete I am new to Wikipedia and have obviously misunderstood the requirements for a proper article. I'll take another approach; including contributions to other articles.  After reading these comments, I don't oppose deletion.(Jrozza (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
 * 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.