The result was keep. The source-based arguments to keep carry the day per WP:GNG. As has been pointed out here, just because something does not (yet) exist does not mean we can't have an article on it if there is adequate sourcing - original research is defined by the non-existence of sources, not by the non-existence of the subject in physical form - nor is the article being short a deletion rationale per WP:DEL. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Doesn't seem to be a notable proposal. The book reference is a modified PhD thesis (and calls it a "UN Legion"); other references are speculation at webforums and a self-published article by Edward Luttwak [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading the book, I find that this article is what we call a good stub with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion, nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after it was created. Far from being a one-person idea discussed by a (subject expert) second person, the subject expert right after discussing Luttwak's January 1993 proposal on the very same page proceeds to discuss a June 1993 proposal by Brian Urquhart. Yes, that Brian Urquhart.
Once one factors Urquhart's name in, one find sources just rolling out, including: ISBN 9780275969066 p. 19, which includes two Secretary-Generals and proposals made at the time of the Korean War into the mix of stuff available for expanding this article, and cites a whole bunch of sources to look at; p. 45 and the whole of Sverre Lodgaard's chapter in ISBN 9783663092254; Adam Roberts' entire chapter in ISBN 9780199583300 that is even entitled "Proposals for standing UN forces: A critial history"; Urquhart xyrself, Robert C. Johansen (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), and others in ISBN 9780971072763; and another subject expert with a doctorate (Annie Herro, with a PhD from the University of Sydney and now a research fellow there) writing ISBN 9781317812296.
And that's simply where I stopped looking rather than where the available sources stop. So let me modify the above to a good stub with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion from subject expert sources, discoverable with about 5 minutes' effort of simple reading, beginning with the very sources cited, even by me. It actually took longer to type this in than to read and to find the stuff. Per Wikipedia:deletion policy we do not delete such things. Titles are fixable with the move tool that everyone with an account has, no administrator required.
There's another Bellamy, by the way, professor Alex J. Bellamy of the University of Queensland and yet another subject expert, who gives a very brief précis of Roberts in ISBN 9780745641867 pages 168–169. doi:10.1080/03071840802249604 looks interesting, too.