Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contractor combatant

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 redirect to Private military company . JForget 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contractor combatant

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

This isn't an article, it's a one-sided opinion piece. I would suggest merging it with Private military company, but this is so POV that there wouldn't be a lot to merge. ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, term comes from a book with the term in the title. Article talks about this book from the get go. Therefore I surmise that this is a promotional posting to Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Private military company or mercenary.--kelapstick (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV-sodden mess, possibly (or probably) with the intent of promoting a book. We can't really effectively merge it anywhere, since that would just be ladling the bias into another article. Suggest a simple redirect to PMC, since "mercenary" has a more general meaning. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism which appears to have only been used by its creator according to a Google search. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this term comes from the title of a book or not is irrelevant as this is now a term of art that defines a position new to modern warfare. This is not a discussion of a private military firm but a new role in modern warfare that is real and Wikipedia can be on the cutting edge by providing insight into a very complex subject. 96.244.227.205 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we by definition don't work on the cutting edge. We require evidence that the term is notable, and it being the title of a book is not enough. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: remove content and redirect to Private military company per suggestions of others above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2009 (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.