Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations


 * 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 nomination was No consensus to delete, therefore keep. - Bobet 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional military organizations
This does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It is perfectly suitable. It falls into the same category as List of fictional United States Presidents and such things like that.--kralahome 03:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I'm all against useless lists, but this is perfectly fine. RidG Talk/Contributions 03:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems appropriate and moderately relevant to certain topics. Michael 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmaintainable. What fictional universe doesn't have a military organization (or eight) in it? Nifboy 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point Nifboy! -Seidenstud03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, the H.P. Lovecraft universe has no fictional military forces, nor does Flatland, The Space Triolgy, Cordwainer Smith's work, King Kong used the very real US Air Force, Blade Runner or Minotry Report movies mention no militaries, Berstein Bears, various Newpaper Comics, the list goes on and on with fictional universes WITHOUT fictional militaries. The list is maintainable, and the pagehistory has shown that various editors have worked very hard to see that each army is verified and categorized properly.  I may also note that this list is also quite helpful in catching anyone who makes vanity material and easier to track down other vanity material on wikipedia and elete it.  --Eldarone 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that a couple of fictional universes don't have fictional military organizations speaks only to differences in author creativity, nothing else. I don't think it's entirely relevant to this discussion, as a large majority do. Alphachimp   talk  13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wow, type in "List of fictional" in the search function and you get all kinds of ridiculous lists, like List of fictional apes... Does this stuff really belong in an encyclopedia? Maybe a "Wikilists" or a "Wikifiction" project is in order. Should I add "List of breakfasts eaten by fictional admirals"? ;)--Cheese Sandwich 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Slipperly Slope Fallacy. There is a difference between keeping what militaries exist and what an general ate for lunch in the history books.  The List of Fictional Miliatries, while fictional, are still relevant enough than say what someone had for breakfast.  --Eldarone 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unmaintainable. This seems like a useful list, but there's an infinite number of things that could go on it. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Coredesat and Nifboy. -- Koffieyahoo 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fictional Military Organizations is perfectly relevant to the many science fiction universes, books, RPG's, etc.Etc. It's a quick and easy aid for one to find a group from a stroy and look up the right series.  And the ,list is maintable, and has been maintianed well. --Eldarone 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is perfectly maintainable, useful and interesting. Penelope D 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Coredesat and Nifboy. It's only maintainable by "someone else" I'm sure, and I'm glad someone finds it useful and interesting, neither of which I do.  I don't think reader-interest ought to be a notability factor, since I suspect that would lead to deleting math and science articles like crazy.  Tychocat 06:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cannot ever be complete, and isn't particularly useful as a navigation aid. It's just a "List of things with a common attribute". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Eldarone. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I find these "Lists of fictional..." things useful and entertaining. I don't understand why list deletion advocates often cite that the list must be "complete" when no Wikipedia article will ever be "complete". --Canley 09:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists that are so broad that they cannot ever be comprehensive are generally "idiosyncratic non-topics", per the deletion policy. This is just a bunch of things that are all foo, which is an idiosyncratic non-topic. There's no possibility for overview, because there's nothing you can say about all (or even most) of these things besides the fact that they're fictional military organizations. This illustrates no trend or topic, and there cannot ever be an accompanying article nor can this list ever be even half-way comprehensive. No article on Wikipedia is ever properly complete, but proper articles can be comprehensive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per A Man In Black. Is the list entertaining? Not particularly for me, but I'm sure it is for some, but that's not really material to this discussion. Is the list maintainable? It's certainly not the worst offended I've seen, but, as has been said, it has very little chance of becoming comprehensive. Is the list useful? Not unless you already have prior knowledge of the subject, and if you have said knowledge, the list pretty much fails to augment it. That leads me to believe it's unencyclopaedic and better off gone. Plus, a lot of people would be upset to learn that the British Army is fictional. GassyGuy 09:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment #2: I started a discussion here on the general topic of lists of fictionals. --Cheese Sandwich 12:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Categorize Delete per Man in Black and Gassy Guy. Despite the poor sorting of a category (alphabetical), it is still a heck of a lot better than having articles like this.  Alphachimp   talk  13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nifboy and Coredsat; so incomplete as to be an indiscriminate list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks ok to me. -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: List criteria is far too broad. List of fictional United States Presidents on the other hand is a far more targetted list. It's a lot easier to actually compare and contrast characters from different series on that list. But this list is so broad and long that I doubt anyone would it find it useful except to waste time adding more cruft to it. Fails WP:NOT - indiscriminate collection of information. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a good article, with encyclopedic content, that many people may find very useful. J Milburn 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - one of the cruftiest lists I've ever seen. The definition of 'military organizations' is ludicrously broad - essentially meaning 'any fictional group who have engaged in, or are prepared for, organised violence'. As it stands, it contains Starfleet, the Brotherhood of Nod and the A-team. Seeing as organised violence is a common theme in fiction, there is essentially no limit to this list. You might as well have a List of fictional lovers. --Nydas 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Starfleet, the A-Team and Nod are still miliary forces. Starfleet was used in the Dominion Wars as the armed forces of the Federation, The A-Team are by diffintion mercenaries: soldiers hired for various actions, and he Brotherhood of Nod is still organized as a military force, although terroist as well.  We have strict standards of what is a military force. --Eldarone 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - would those strict standards allow the Power Rangers onto this list? I can't see any particular difference between them and the A-team, GI Joe, Star Fox, People's Front of Judea, etc.--Nydas 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above, and Wikify. -- Dom  th  e  dude  0  0  1  18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: In my opinion, a good list should have some sort of specific cross-referencing use, IE: An index. Or, a good list can give interesting information on its topics, IE: List of fictional United States Presidents. A good list also has a narrow scope and sticks to it, in this article, the scope is too broad, such as to include government-sponsored militaries, and mercenary corporations which, in some cases, aren't even "military", IE: The A-Team. Not exactly listcruft, but, not exactly useful either. JJJJust 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment' - The A-Team is still a mercenary force, a group that gets paid for military activities. The list only includes, and only, military forces. Throughout history there have been many different types of militaries groups, from small Freelancers to Rome's Voleenteer armies to Warrior caste to paramilitary forces.  There is such a board variety of fighting forces in real life as well --Eldarone 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I recognize the A-Team as a mercenary force, I do not recognize them as military and I do not recognize them as an organization and therefore discount their inclusion in the list, and by extension, discount the rationale, scope, and viability of the list. JJJJust 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The A-Team is still a mercenary company, dispite it's small size. It's like saying a Mom and Pop store isn't a bussiness because they don't have 20 stores.  Size dosn't matter.  If you have a problem with The A-Team being on the list, then go the discussion page and debate it. --Eldarone 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's symptomic of this list's problems. What can you say that applies to both Starfleet and the A-Team? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not, the A-team is a small Mercenary force that's sort of like a special ops team for hire. Eventually, the A-Team does become part of a larger military agency in the last season.  Starfleet is the Military and exploration arm of the United Federation of Planets built more along the lines of traditional military forces.  Starfleet is chartered by the Federation, overseen by polticians, and is diffinately a much largeer organization.  But both Starfleet and the A-Team are still trained, professional military forces, regardless of size or wither they get paid or not. What exactly is the problem though?  I don't quite understand what the problem is.  Do you have a problem with Mercs being classsifed as Military?   --Eldarone 04:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no topic, just a shared attribute. There's nothing you can say about these things as a group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a topic for this list: "Fictional" as in non real, "Military Organization" is the term chosen becaused there is a variety of Military forces, from regular Armed Forces, to Rebels, Mercenaries, Militia, and even culturaly based warriors. Nothing to say as a group?  All these are fictional Military forces.  That is the topic.  If you have issues with the article, then go to the discussion page and discuss it with the editors there.  --Eldarone 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is such a broad list that it isn't a topic, just a list of things that have a single shared attribute, like a "List of blue things" or "List of three-word phases." My problem with this list can be resolved by deleting it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a broad list. Every single unit on that list is a Military Force, by diffition (from Dictionary.com):military- adj 1: of or relating to the study of the principles of warfare.  All these orgziation have to deal with WARFARE, they are Fictional, must be a group, and they have to be from a notable source.  They do not share a single artbute, they all share several attributes. --Eldarone 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all of these organizations deal with warfare (I see several exceptions, mostly untested defense groups, mercenaries, and terrorist groups), and nothing in the introduction implies that this is true. All these things seem to have in common is one shared attribute: they're fictional military groups. Just like "things that are blue" and "people with red hair", there's no topic, just a shared attribute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Shmila 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Coredesat. Green caterpillar 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful information for browsing if maintained. Dpv 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Canley. 12.9.180.18 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indented vote by anon user. --WinHunter (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per A Man in Black and Coredesat. I really can't see how this will ever be useful, it's just too broad. BryanG(talk) 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:NOT and being unencyclopedic. --WinHunter (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep any article with over 500 edits in its history, over a period in excess of 2 years. AndyJones 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmaintainably broad. Anything that includes the A-Team and Starfleet needs to be tightened, and I don't see how that can be done without a rename/reboot. Someone may want to userfy this and start it over with better list criteria. Lists tends to accumulate edits, so AndyJones' reasoning is not persuasive to me. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful list for authors who wish to create new fictional military organizations. A "cheat sheet" of sorts.  Silly but handy. Flying Jazz 01:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as the list is useful in crosschecking with existing military units, fictional or real, as well as links to related articles in science fiction, fantasy, military fiction, and literature. The list is also maintainable, as the editors of the page have removed and recategorized hundreds of unrelated, misplaced, or non-existant links and entries over the past 2 years of the articles. I do believe there will now be a much tighter hand on submission to this article, with the addition of small descriptions for each category instead of links to articles related to the category. --YoungFreud 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with category. Just a list if links.  Limited categorization can be duplicated with subcategories. Eluchil404 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's all good.--Tomtom9041 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - A good and handy article User:Ominae 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and useful. - CNichols 01:54, 11 July 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.