Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drill Instructor Creed

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, appropriate information is at Drill instructor. Sr 13 05:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drill Instructor Creed[edit]

Directory of links, no other appropriate info. Recommend deletion of page, and sectstub at drill instructor. Rifleman 82 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and sectstub per Rifleman. Drill instructor has a section about the creed, but it links to this article. Unneeded--Ispy1981 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on sight. This personal essay violates WP:NPOV, is poorly written, and is unnecessary. --Nonstopdrivel 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rambling, poorly written essay per above. Doczilla 06:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's a poorly written, unsourced, POV military-fancruft essay. it's barely notable enough to get a mention in Drill instructor, let alone an article of it's own. Elmo 09:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the (poorly written) Drill instructor. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes no sense, and there is a D.I. page already. JJL 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge onto Drill instructor ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there anything in this article that really needs a Merge? I have added the Army and Marine DI Creeds into the Drill Instructor article, this version, if article edited further. Other Creeds could be added from other services, should others know the AF, Navy, Coast Guard, and any other worldwide services' creeds. Other information about specific creeds could be added as needed, as could anything from this article that is salvagable, if necessary or desirable. LaughingVulcan 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made please review as resources have been cited, a search of subject needs specifics only as in defining. The entry like oath of enlistment is specific. Drill Instructor provides detailed information that can overwhelm readers when explaining the difference in branches of military training policies, especially if all they want is a copy of the creeds available. Public interest in the subject is when presenting inscribed versions, practice in recital, persons sworn to protect constitutional rights, or historical research as to origins of creeds of military services. Merging is not effective when all a reader needs is specifics. Search relevance is optimized by 68.7% a variance of +/-2% with appropriate links. Like Google Mini, you can offer relevant and secure search across intranets, file servers, and business applications The Google Mini works with over 220 different file formats and its integration.

Drill Instructor Creed Thank you, 2020

If the parent article is not well elaborated in the first place, why should the daughter article be so long? WP is not a directory. All these creeds can be moved to wikisource, and a brief description about their purposes etc be stubbed at drill instructor. --Rifleman 82 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia project failure is eminent

damage control on clean up project should be main focus.

please be more specific when addressing articles. Parent article assuming Drill instructor, and daughter article Drill Instructor creed? If so how can adding relevant references used to establish factual information, living examples, and categories that cross reference subject matter. Makes it to long?

Editors should be able to proof article copies, verify subject matter facts based on their area of expertise, guide and direct entries into the correct projects with detailed instructions on the how to move. What I'm saying is, there are many people that have the ability to contribute information, but it is up to the editors to direct the flow. how the project is failing is there is no guide on the hierarchical structures of subject matter. It is better to establish a visible data structure diagram with a (modifiable frame, changeable only by editors to add additional sub topics)

This diagram can be viewed by writers and when they see a slot that needs information they can submit their article information to an editor that has charge over that subject matter.

once a collection of articles on that particular subject has developed, the editor can then ask for opinions as to which writers article should lead that entry. That writer then becomes the editor for that entry and compiles all contributions and sets up the sub directories. All contributions should be archived, but it will be the primary writer that modifies any changes.

example Article U.S.Congress, primary writer then list dates leaving blank slots as to the person that served at that time, primary writer give an open project date and close date. Editor then chooses best entry, which then that person becomes the editor and archivist for that entry. To clean a project is harder then starting over, it is better to clean the slate and have project managers start a data structure diagram and develop it from there and appoint new project manager editors based on their knowledge of the subject matter.

People want to help write, just give them a selection of what is needed and on what subjects. with a project start and end date.

I may wait until their is a better structure design in Wikipedia, I have seen this house of cards before. Once you start cleaning, you end up pulling out important support structures that collapse levels that have become dependent on the support of another subject. I want to help, as do many people. All we need is a list of subject matters under research, project dates, location to archive, and article structure template.

The most important use of link exchange from every ones point of view is that a lot of search engines rank searches higher depending on the number of entries that point to the information. There are a lot more algorithms to it than that but reciprocal linking is a part of it..

Most search engines theories is that the more links that point to subject matter, the more relevant the information is. That's why reciprocal linking is a good Internet strategy that works.

See automata theory

A computer science discipline that concerns an abstract device called an "automaton," which performs a specific computational or recognition function. Networks of automata are designed to mimic human behavior, thought patterns and organizational information skills.

Thanks, --Research2020 2:50pm, 19 June 2007

Response Uh, no.... ? Wikipedia is not a Linkfarm. So if you think it is, then yes, you will be disappointed. And this article, with its references to "Oaths of Office" (which DI Creeds are not,) its references to the other United States armed services links (which are provided at their own subjects in Wikipedia,) its inability to talk on a single point of subject, and flatly erroneous information (the Creed quoted is the Drill Sergeants Creed of the US Army - not "the" DI Creed,) make this article irredeemable and darn near an A1 speedy. I appreciate your attempt to make Wikipedia "better" by attempting to optimize search engines, or whatever, but first the article has to be an article. LaughingVulcan 22:49, 19 June 2007 (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.