Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 star rank

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 article is unsourced. The "keep" arguments are weak and amount to hand-waving. Per WP:V, the onus to provide sources rests on those arguing for retention. Sandstein 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 star rank

This page is conjecture. Nobody has ever been awarded a 6 star rank in any country. The United States has had a Admiral of the Navy (United_States) which covers the issues much more accurately. The information in this article cannot be verified as it is Original Research. Why not an article on 7 star rank? Woody (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be arguable as to whether anyone has been awarded this rank, as the article says, but so what? Are you similarly going to propose deletion of Unbiseptium on the grounds that it has not yet been synthesised, and may never be? As to 7 star rank, if you have similar information on such a rank, then I for one would be fascinated to read it. What you appear to be expressing is a (widely held) POV that ranks above five star are somehow invalid. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Woody (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Essentially a conjectural essay. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Admiral of the Navy (United States) per nom and per Dhartung. Given that this seems to have been the only time this rank was granted, it's the logical search result we want to return. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and add addition info. Apparently North Korea has a rank they consider 6-star - Wonsu. Dpmuk (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no useful content here --T-rex 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment THIS is what happens when you just toss out facts without telling where you got them from. No excuse for not sourcing this. I recall reading something about this in the World Almanac once, but what I recall is, like this, original research. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Isn't World Almanac a reliable secondary source? Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information (or perhaps it's speculation, I confess I don't know) in the article is entirely from existing Wikipedia articles (similarly unsourced), just collected into one place to make navigation a bit easier. And I do notice that nobody has moved yet to correct any of these other articles. Assuming the info is accurate, it's an encyclopedic topic, so either let the stub grow (and it certainly needs a lot of work) or delete the rest of the claims too, starting with the alleged six-star insignia. My feeling is that this is fascinating information, although I'm sure some military purists would prefer to bury it. Andrewa (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. If Pershing or MacArthur were considered, there should be references. IIRC the Soviets had generals with ten stars 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, rebuild as dab to the two American and one North Korean articles. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Admiral of the Navy (United States) and General of the Armies detail how George Dewey and John J. Pershing held 6-star rank (in Pershing's case, how he was held above 5-star generals), making the conjecture argument invalid and satisfying the restrictions set in Wikipedia:No original research. Redirecting would be inappropriate because bot the Army and Navy held this 6-star rank, and picking one over the other would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Deleting it based on notability makes as much sense as deleting 5 star rank. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:13, 20 August 2008 (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.