Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military figures by nickname

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 keep. Tone 09:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of military figures by nickname

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nowhere near encyclopedic value. Pure trivia. This is just collection of information for the sake of having another list. T v x1 14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So a page that helps people identify historical figures by nicknames, when they may not know the actual name, has no value? Despite the fact I created the page just for that reason (not, I might say, "for the sake of having another list"). Of course, this is just another effort to delete every damn page I ever created. So what about this? Not notable, I suppose? Or this? No "encyclopedic value", right? Or this? Which has already been deleted once before as "not notable", but didn't stick; go ahead, try again. Or this, clearly no value there, either, right? Just because you don't like it, it has to go, I guess, & that anybody but you might find it useful makes no difference, right? Right. Why don't you try creating a page, rather than working so damn hard to delete them? Oh, wait, then you'd have to put up with my "unencyclopedic" ones... What a tragedy. My Name Is Nobody ^{just shoot me} 14:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOT a valid argument for keeping an article.T v x1 23:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic and far from trivial. Could use more sourcing on some entries, ~~but it's only new~~. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:LISTN and WP:OR because half the items on the list doesn't cite any sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a (fixable) lack of sourcing on some entries (of a long list) make the whole list fail WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, well if you did that almost half of the entries will disappear. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. That would be remove the unsourced items at worst. SpinningSpark 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not seeing the claimed value of this list as a navigation aid. If a person wants to find a general known as "Butch" for instance, the list is useless unless you already know it exists. The target can be found much more directly from the Butch disambiguation page which points to Butch (nickname) where I find two generals of that name William H. Blanchard and Clyde J. Tate II. That example, by the way, highlights the severe sourcing problems with this page. The pages for both those generals confirm the nickname but they are not on the list. However, Crosbie E. Saint is but his article says nothing about a nickname. It's one thing not to have every item in a list cited, but at the very least the linked article should confirm the fact. If kept, this needs cleaning up big time. SpinningSpark 17:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (& not only because I created the page). Yes, completeness is an issue; that presupposes any given editor knows every figure with a given nickname, or knows the list exists. Given the number of editors (& individual pages!), I don't see how that's a fixable problem. That, IMO, does not mean the page itself has no merit; WP itself is a WIP... It does seem the idea of "value" to potential readers does have no merit, however, which puzzles me; "encyclpedic", by definition, would seem to mean "wide coverage", so why does a page that can point readers from nicknames to actual people a bad idea? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A large proportion (well over 50%) of military personnel have had a nickname. We would delete a List of military figures, even if inclusion is by wiki notability, as simply too large a list - this list - a list of all military people, notable ones, with a nickname - is approximately the same order of magnitude of size - failing WP:SALAT. I also doubt that nicknames of all military personnel (from all ages / locations) are discussed a set.Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think inclusion criteria can be worked out; there's certainly a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE issue right now and many of the entries are unsourced redlinks. There's also a List of aviators by nickname. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of aviators - being much fewer (very few pilots overall - compared to ground crew or greens - though all (or 98%) of pilots have nicknames/callsigns), and being period scoped to the last 100 and a bit years - is 2-3 ordrrs of magnitude less indiscriminate. Icewhiz (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is just a list of arguments to avoid: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC; WP:TRIVIAL; WP:ITSCRUFT. There's no evidence that WP:BEFORE has been followed as it's easy to find sources which show that this passes WP:LISTN. For example: Military Nicknames; Nicknames for Generals. Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could need improvement though, especially sourcing for redlink and nolink entries. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't satisfy it just because you say so. You need to prove WHY it satisfies that.T v x1 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This list is way too abstract and either needs expansion or shrinking (and a new, respective title if shrunk), however it still satisfies WP:LISTN. It needs work for sure but should be kept. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (somewhat to my surprise). It seems people are indeed interested and regard this as encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.