Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spin Jet


 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Spin Jet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hello community! This article initally had an entire [section] with Spam. The spam was there since its conception. I believe that "spin jet" might be a real physics term, but I am afraid that it might have been invented to spread the spam. Since the article has no references and google searches for <"spin jet" physics> do not give me anything good, I suggest deletion per WP:NN. This sounds like something that was created to sound legit but is not. Any experts? Brusegadi (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Minor hits on google books.  I cant judge if they're legit or not though Corpx (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The first few Google scholar hits for this phrase do not seem to have anything to do with magnetic particles, weather systems, planetary rings, or the other seemingly-unrelated concepts the anonymous editor of this article keeps trying to throw together: they concern jet engines, liquid blasting systems, and (in a particle physics article) a notation with "spin" as a superscript and "jet" as a subscript. Even if this is a valid term in some areas of science or engineering, the current article seems useless as a starting point. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Partons, spintronics, space plasmas, horoscopes, climate change, and an earthquake have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.  Bm gub (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There was no deletion notice on the article, I've just added one. Bm gub (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As you wanted, I just stop to proceed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.248.115.158 (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2008 (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.