Talk:Chair force

2005 Nomination for Deletion
The first time I tried to delete this page I didn't know how Wikipedia worked, and accidentally just erased the information on it. I've done some digging, and apparently this page was originally deleted in 2005. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy on this, but does the new keep override the old delete that was carried out?

"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chair force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Jump to: navigation, search

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 of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Chair force[edit]

This article is an attack on the USAF and inherently POV. Even if it were cleaned up enough to make it NPOV, it is still covered in military slang. Imagine if all of the entries in that article had their own article. rogerd 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Delete since I am the nominator --rogerd 17:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Keep, but the article needs a lot of NPOV work. "Chair force" is a common term. Rhobite 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) One part of such NPOV work would be ensuring that an article didn't use this common term as its title, since it advocates one side of the debate. Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge into List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions or the raunchier Military slang, after paring it down. The rambling discussion portion is not useful, and not particularly encyclopedic. Chris the speller 19:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Delete I didn't see it was already in Military slang, so no need for merge. Chris the speller 16:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Merge with Military slang. Jasmol 02:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC) It already has an entry in Military slang. Unless you want to expand the entry there, there is nothing to merge --rogerd 05:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC) In that case, Delete no need for distinct article on this. Jasmol 08:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Already there at Military slang. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Keep, it is a valid article regarding a common expression.--Mais oui! 19:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) It isn't about an expression at all. It's an "are not!"/"are too!" article about the relative merits of the U.S. Air Force versus the other branches of the military. Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I don't have a binary keep/delete recommendation but this does remind me a bit of all the ruckus over Islamofascism (term). Maybe some lessons can be learned from that, even if I'm not entirely sure what they are. That article starts with "Islamofascism" is a controversial term used by some commentators to refer to... Would rewriting Chair force along these lines make the article more acceptable? I honestly don't know, I never heard the term until today and don't know anything about it. - Haukur 19:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) HYPERSTRONG DELETE: Reason: This is similar to calling the US Marines "Jarheads". Martial Law 23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Have a bug in my online designation program. It is being fixed. Still say that this needs to be thrown out.Martial Law 23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Strong delete. We need to support our troops overseas and at home, now more than ever. This article makes a mockery of the men and women who put their lives on the line for America every single day. Bruce176 Wikipedia covers the whole world, and takes no sides. Which troops are "our" troops, exactly? Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. By the time you remove the POV cruft, all you are left with is what already exists in Military slang. McNeight 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Delete per all above and padlock as likely vandalism magnet. B.Wind 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) This is not an article about a phrase at all. It's an article about the relative merits of the various branches of the U.S. military. Such an article probably could be written. I am confident that one could find sources discussing that subject if one looked, sources more serious than Tom Lehrer, even. But this article isn't it. For one thing, this article has a title that strongly advocates one side of the debate, and thus contravenes our Neutral Point of View policy. We don't have our comparison of operating systems article under the titles Microsloth Windows or Loonix, for example. Since this article had turned into an original research magnet by its fourth edit, there's nothing to save here, so renaming the article to a neutral title isn't worthwhile. We might as well delete and start from scratch with a neutral title. Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Delete, then redirect. If content has already been duplicated in another location (Military slang), there's nothing to merge. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:40, Dec. 18, 2005 Strong delete - I served in the Army, so I'm biased. I make my decision as per all the other deletes on this page. Daykart 01:33, 21 December 2005 (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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.250.124 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)