Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War A

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 deleted under G11/A11 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) ₆an⁶sh₆ 08:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World War A[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personal essay on a non-notable neologism and the very POV concept that it denotes. A google search found no one but the creator usign this term in this way. Delete unless reliable independent sources can be provided showing the term is in wide enough use to be notable and pass the WP:GNG. DES ^(talk) 01:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been tagged for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, and on top of that, I consider it to be an attack page as well, with the target of the attack apparently being human society in general (which is a new one). It also seems to be part of a promotional campaign, which means you could probably throw in advertising as well. Jinkinson talk to me 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined speedy deletion because this isn't a hoax (it isn't intended to deceive.) I also don't believe G10 covers this, technically speaking -- intellectual theories concerning humanity's capacity for evil aren't the sort of "attacks" that criterion is meant to cover. Having said that, this is an unattested neologism that clearly needs to go, even if it escapes just barely speedy deletion. Xoloz (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much one guy trying to promote a neologism he made up. Now don't get me wrong: the general idea he's trying to peddle isn't new. People have been arguing that humanity has been mistreating and exploiting animals for as long as we can remember. However this article is more about the neologism and an attempt to promote the author's viewpoint. It isn't commonly used and the article is a pretty obvious platform for the author, who I'll note is also likely the editor who created the article. (This link is about a book by Herbert M. Garvin and the editor who created this is named Garvin641. Not trying to dox, just saying that it's extremely likely that this was a promotion attempt.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As such, I've tagged it as speedy deletion for something someone made up one day (for the neologism) and as an obviously promotional article. It's trying to promote both the term, the book, and the viewpoint. I honestly can't emphasize enough that this term is non-notable and not in use by anyone other than the author. I can't find it in use anywhere in this context to where I'd say that it would merit an entry or even a redirect anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a copy of the article in his userspace, so I've tagged that for speedy deletion as a way of hopefully preventing its recreation in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone moved it there with the hopes of the person cleaning it, but I'll again state that this is a very, very non-notable and very promotional article. There is pretty much only a 1% chance that this will ever become notable enough for an entry. I also have to say that given the very promotional standpoint of the article, this is one of those instances where I'd prefer that a COI editor not edit about their own work or keep a copy in their userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per G-11. This is so over the top, no further commentary should be required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2014 (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.