Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military ranks


 * 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. The WP:SNOW, it is falling in blizzard proportions. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Something like this is of zero encyclopedic value, it's completely impossible to maintain and distinguishing what would be a notable inclusion is near undoable. It's been unsourced since five years back now and I doubt it will improve. ★Trekker (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Really not sure what function this serves, totaly unsourced and OR (are they "fictional ranks" or real ranks used in fiction?) and with some sever undue issues.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources. Possibly OR. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Might be worthwhile in each specific series/book, might not, however collecting these does not seem to serve any purpose.Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per other commentators.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Zip references. Might be relevant to individual series (and within such articles) but not here (this article). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A ; clearly not the case here- fails WP:LISTN, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  13:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The best with this would seem to be splitting it down into genres and having each of those well sourced. We do manage to do this, with List of fictional aircraft, so I think the sourcing problems aren't insurmountable.  But I can't see how a single list article like this can cover from Game of Thrones to Star Trek in one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Most the ranks listed are infact real ranks used in series like star trek, a better type of of article would be something like, Command structures in Star Trek etc etc, which would allow a more in depth look at the context. Dysklyver  14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like a foundation for WP:Fancrufting. — Marcus(talk) 17:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:FANCRUFT and pretty much everyone elses reasons. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: this is not encyclopedic content. Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete INDISCRIMINATE does not apply and FANCRUFT is not a reason for deletion. However, this is OR that fails GNG, and that is. In general, these are not even fictional military ranks, but rather real world terms applied in interesting ways to fictional militaries.  While the fictional military organizations might be notable, the lack of RS commentary on their rank structure renders our suppositions OR and demonstrates a lack of GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (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.