Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative military ranks of World War II


 * 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 Keep. Stifle 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparative military ranks of World War II
This page constitutes original research due to absence of English-language sources

I gave some Russian sources, but they are unacceptable for the opponents. There is no any other English sources for the topic. The present state of the article is the mixture of original research of the users.--Nixer 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some acceptable sources descovered.--Nixer 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frivolous proposal due to the fact that one person (the proposer) does not agree with certain parts of the article (i.e. he believes that Soviet high commanders were senior to any other officers in the world and will not budge on this position). -- Necrothesp 12:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no sources for the article at all. If you know any - give a link please--Nixer 12:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Necrothesp. This article is part of a series of articles, including Comparative military ranks of World War I and Comparative military ranks. Nixer has some kind of agenda to present Stalin as some kind of semi-god while ignoring the basic military and diplomatic principles that the most senior military officer of one country is equal to the senior military officer of another. The same goes for Heads of State. The President of Mali is assumed equal to the President of the USA in diplomatic circles. Nixer disagrees with that and has been edit warring on the article to push his POV . He has violated the 3RR many times and has been blocked for it . All other editors disagree with his views. He has cited no acceptable sources and now that it has become clear that there is no way he will get his POV though, when at least three other editors will be rolling him back until he cites a source, there is no other outcome. IMO this is a bad faith nomination and a violation of WP:POINT. Izehar 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I based my edits on sourses I presented. You dont accept them due to language. There is no any other sourses to build the article on exept for original research. If you know some acceptable source - please give a link. The article in the present form not only does not raflect relative correspondence of military ranks, but also does not properly indicate the internal ranking of the Soviet military.--Nixer 13:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read your sources through babelfish. You must think we're all stupid - there is NOTHING in those sources to suggest that Stalin outranks everyone. Izehar 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The source indicates private view of the researcher, since there was no official view. The table in his research indicates that Marshal of the Soviet Union outranked US General of the Army. Though since the source is not acceptable, this does make any point.--Nixer 13:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep; we don't delete articles over content disputes. &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a content dispute. The point is there is no sources to build the article on. The lack of sources is because the absece of official correspondence between the military ranks before 1955. So the only way is to build the table based on the contraversal original research.--Nixer 13:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course there are, go to your local library. I have found:
 * Atlas of the Second World War, Guild Publishing, London 1989
 * The Military History of Worls War II, Guild Publishing, London, 1986, Barrie Pitt
 * The World War II Databook, BCA, 1993, John Ellis
 * Encyclopaedia of the World's Air Forces, PSL, 1988, Michael J. Taylor
 * Luckily, I'm in a library now and know that you're making up things as you go along. Stalin did NOT outrank the heads of the military of other countries. Stop propaganda pushing. Izehar 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Give some quotes.--Nixer 13:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There most certainly are sources, if not quite obvious ones. The creation of the rank of "General of the Army", for instance, would have been meaningless without the correspondence.  But see my longer comments on the article's talk page. &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 13:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be (mostly) healthy cooperation on the discussion page. I thought that articles without sources got an "unsourced" tag; not AfD. -- Mikeblas 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a request for ban on me! "Healthy cooperation!". To be healty, please ask not to ban me until the discussion is over, in the WP:3RR, please.--Nixer 13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you didn't keep reverting then you wouldn't be blocked! It's fairly simple. -- Necrothesp 13:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do YOU reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixer (talk • contribs)
 * I haven't broken the 3RR. You've been continually warned about it. -- Necrothesp 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bad faith nomination? Cyde Weys votetalk 14:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Nixer is abusing the process. Lukas 14:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Nixer is abusing the process. CalJW 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So what sources to be used to base the article on?--Nixer 14:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nixer, I just cited a source on the article talk page which includes a table of the military ranks of every country involved in the war. Do you know that abuse of process = trolling = disruption = WP:BLOCK? Izehar 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems your source does not contain any information on the correspondence.--Nixer 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; very encyclopedic topic. I'd almost suspect a bad-faith nomination. :-/ &mdash; RJH 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep bad faith nomination IMHO. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- appropriate topic. Yoninah 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Reyk 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disagreeing with other editors is not a reason to list an article for deletion.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The above debate belongs on the article talk page. Durova 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep- I can't see why this was nominated Astrotrain 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep; Bad faith nomination. --Lysytalk 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (and perhaps add translations of the non-English ranks) --Ajdz 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, attempt to delete articles over a content dispute. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:33, 12 January 2006 (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.