Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2)


 * 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 no consensus to delete. Actions such as cleanup, renaming etc. don't need AFD. Petros471 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2)
Originally listed as a prod. Prod was removed with edit summary, "deprod, non-notable members can be removed". That explanation is insufficient in my opinion. I am bringing it here for discussion, for the same reasons as the prod: unencyclopedic list not in support of any article; unverified and without sources; possibly original research; a potentially indeterminate list. This list is doing what a Category:Japanese Army Officers ought to be doing. Agent 86 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, why not tell people the rank of the officers they are looking up? Kappa 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with cleanup, re-prod, editing, and citation. Basically, this article deserves to exist, but not in its current form--it needs a huge overhaul to meet Wikipedia standards. This is definitely something that users of, WP might want to have quick access to, but a bloated list of too many officers doesn't cut it. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename/sort A list of senior officers - say, of general rank and higher - would make more sense. This list currently has headings for "Sergeant", "Lieutenants" (spelt wrong), "Corporals" and "Regular Cadets" of which there must have been tens of thousands and quite possibly, hundreds of thousands. Or perhaps list could be renamed to List of notable Japanese Army Officers (WW2) and each name reassessed for notability. I also prefer the category idea in general, as suggested by nom Bwithh 00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep although the information could be wildly inaccurate for all I know. I agree that a category could serve the same end, but since the article exists, why kill it since it seems to represent a lot of work.  Also, the point about notability is well-taken, although that should presumably be implicit in the grounds for inclusion. Eusebeus 11:05, 8 August 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.