Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of naval commanders


 * 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. Keep arguments did not refute the arguments raise in favour of deletion, and a couple of them came perilously close to WP:ILIKEIT. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of naval commanders

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Overly broad list with no clear criteria for inclusion. Potentially anyone who has commanded anything at anytime in any navy - ship, unit, base, fleet, flotilla, three man work detail - qualifies for inclusion. Categories already exist for admirals and naval officers. As with List of World War II veterans, the scope of this list is much too great to be succinct or encyclopedic. Listcruft and indiscriminate collection of information Nobunaga24 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This sort of item is best handed via categories. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:CLS, "incomplete list", "redundant to category", are not reasons for deleting a list. MrPrada (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say "incomplete"? I see nobody saying that. The scope is much too broad is what I am saying. With the current criteria, I could cut and paste the entire U.S. Navy Admirals category and satisfy the conditions of this list.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all admirals commanded ships, some (believe it or not) have been staff officers their entire careers, unless you are making a semantics argument. I noted that it was incomplete because you stated that there are a lot of people who could be included that currently are not, hence, incomplete list... MrPrada (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The list isn't about commanding ships - it says naval commanders. And command at some point in some capacity (i.e. a section, department, command ashore) is a requirement for flag rank.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename List of naval leaders or List of admirals and specify criterion is commanding a fleet. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - No clarity around what the list is intended to achieve, no inclusion criteria (what is meant by Command in this context), purpose could more reasonably be supported using categories.ALR (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep- this page is exactly fine the way it is i mean if we deleted it we would have to go find the comander or person on such and such ship instead we have a list you can think of it as a gigantic disgmburation page that is very clean and organizedANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete - inclusion critieria too broad and what purpose would a complete list serve, leave it to catgories. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ok lets comprimise lets make this a catogory.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A category for just naval commanders is just as vague and broad. Aside from deleting an open-ended list like this, the optimal solution would be to break it into lists based on more specific crtieria, such as time period or war or nationality, to name a few.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. List served some purpose while searching for a 'Commodore Hopkins' I was able to determine that Esek Hopkins was the person I was looking for. Some other way to keep good cross-reference material from being deleted because it doesn't fit article guidelines must be found. Red links are minimal throughout this list. --Brad (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – overly broad category and, as the discussion above implies, somewhat ambiguous. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This can/should be/(is?) taken care of by categories.  BWH76 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2008 (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.