Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian Combat Veteran
: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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
=[[Civilian Combat Veteran]]=
:{{la|Civilian Combat Veteran}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|Civilian Combat Veteran}})
Part neologism (the Lea person described in the article--the article's author?--has trademarked the term), part dictionary definition. I accepted this from AFC because I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but I don't think it's a valid encyclopedia article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Nobody's paid much attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is a clunky term which has no particular definition and hasn't been widely adopted as a concept. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism with no indication of notability. {{U|Calliopejen1}}, please free to decline obviously non-notable subjects at AfC on notability grounds instead of wasting editor time with unnecessary AfDs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2015 (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.