Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations (3rd nomination)


 * 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. After two no-consensus closes over the last five years, this time there is a consensus. DGG is quite right that there is no deadline, so if anyone wants to work on this article in user-space, please let me know. Courcelles (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional military organizations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

List which fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:IINFO. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and a large list of fictional military organisations seems to be edging on that. It's so broad that the list doesn't really serve any purpose - it details both fictional regiments from real armies, fictional armies of real places and fictional armies of fictional nations. Furthermore, "fiction" has become an extremely broad term - this list covers not only literature, but film and video-games. Two previous AFDs lead to no consensus. Claritas § 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- After two AfDs and 18 months after the last nomination the article is still sourceless and overflowing with OR. Therefore it's almost certainly unfixable. Reyk  YO!  22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep no deadline on improvements--why not try doing that instead of nominating for deletion. I know its tempting to try to delete all the relatively low grade articles, but it takes a long time to improve the immense number that we have. As for some specifics, fiction is always interpreted here as including film and videogames, and for that matter comic and video programs, not just published books. Why shouldn't it be? Most important stories, and most important plot elements  occur similarly in all of them--and this particular one is a very good example of just that. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable to use WP:NODEADLINE as a means of dodging WP:BURDEN indefinitely. Policy states that material should be promptly sourced, or removed, if challenged. Two AfDs and 18 months time demonstrates that the former can't be done so removal remains as the only option. Reyk   YO!  23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is an indiscriminate collection of information. I must also second the comments of Reyk, that if the article has remained unsourced for so long, it should be deleted. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is simply a list of trivia. Not everything can be cleaned up.  Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research abounds; each entry should have been sourced as being a fictional military organization to have been let into the list. Now that this is at AfD I concur with deletion since it's quite obvious that the overly broad scope of the list (WP:SALAT) inhibits the development of an article that fits within our policies. The sum total of the list doesn't amount to any sort of encyclopedic understanding of fictional military organizations other than "there's a lot of 'em!". The individual entries have nothing in common other than the overly broad criteria for inclusion. As the nom pointed out, WP:DIRECTORY and WP:IINFO come into play here.  Them  From  Space  09:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no deadline but after years of asserting potential it's time to admit this one cannot be fixed. Fails policies as indiscriminate and without the right sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2010 (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.