Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stopping power

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stopping power
Nicely written article, but it is original research. Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Woohookitty 06:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep or Merge with Terminal ballistics . -- Duk 12:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Terminal ballistics is already a large article, and deals with larger artillery, in addition to fire arms. Stopping power is an important and well used term in the vernacular. And there is a huge amount of research over the last century on this topic, see M16 and Flechette for example. I think this article is a very good start. Duk 08:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup. Megan1967 01:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, too different to merge with the very general terminal ballistics. Also, it's not even original research -- it's explanations, presumably gathered from ... the author says Martin Fackler -- where'd you get that, Woohoo? Chrontius
 * Keep, but feel free to disregard this vote; as the original author (with an account, finally), I can hardly be considered unbiased. The vast majority of information in the article is indeed from Dr. Fackler.  Exact citations are difficult since very little of his writing is available on the web, and I have no hard copies.  The links section links to what little there is, though.  I wouldn't particularly mind if this article were merged with terminal ballistics, however.  In fact, I'm in the process of modifying said article right now. Arrkhal
 * Keep it. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 10:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup. Valid subject about which much can be written.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep plus cleanup --Smooth Henry 17:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or clean up radically. Long winded, needs summarising. More of an essay than an encylopedic entry. GraemeLeggett
 * Keep. It has a lot of good information about an interesting and usual topic, which is exactly what Wikipedia is about. With a little structural rearrangement and editing for voice, I think it will fit right in here. --Jwanders 16:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepWikipedia is just the right place for factual articles, even with its subjective conclusion, which make common sense. The article is factual as any one who has read experts opinions of the many gun magazines over the years or has done a lot of shooting and hunting will agree. "Keep"  [RS]