Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proxy war


 * 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   keep. WP:SNOW j⚛e deckertalk 16:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Proxy war

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is fantasy from a Wikipedia-editor; there's no proof of any scholar or expert supporting anything the article says. Corriebertus (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A quick Google search will demonstrate that the term "proxy war" is used by a substantial number of news, historical and government sources to describe conflicts where third parties fight on the behalf of more powerful parties. Its a commonly used term and is by no means a neolgism. That being said, this article is in need of clean-up and is almost completely uncited. However, these issues can be fixed through editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and a trout to the nominator; the concept of a "proxy war" is a widely-known and widely-discussed subject. Now the actual content of the article may need (a lot of) work, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * speedy keep The nominator obviously hasn't done any of the most basic homework, or he would have discovered the 6,000-odd GScholar hits and the numerous books on specific proxy wars. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -- Having a list article as a main article is unsatisfactory; and the article certainly requires more work, but it certainly should not be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a widely used term. Whether the current contents of the article are as good as they could be, or if it should be edited, is another matter. But the concept is clearly accepted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely used term. To say I'm surprised that someone would call the term a "fantasy" is an understatement. Orser67 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator might not be a native English speaker, which could explain his/her unfamiliarity with such a common term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2014 (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.