Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British military, naval and air force figures by wealth at death

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 with nobody except the author defending this odd aggregation of data. Sandstein 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British military, naval and air force figures by wealth at death[edit]

Contested prod. List of two (actually, four) largely unrelated subjects. One country, one group of people, one characteristic, and one moment in their life. Page is a synthesis of data gleaned from reliable sources, but is as such (wealth of military figures at time of death) not a subject of any notable research or commentary. Wealth (and, probably more importantly, class and family) played a large role in British military history (to make it overly simplified, if you were a nobleman, you became an officer: otherwise you didn't), but that doesn't mean that your wealth at the time of your death had any relation to this. And of course any job means an income, so there is some relation there. But there is no significant reason to single out the wealth at death of this occupation. A novelty list, not a representation of a subject that has received consioderable scientific attention or mass media attention. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a database of spurious data. This article provides information unspecific to those listed, or to notable canditates, with only notable subject's listed. It provides no encylopeidc insight, or useful links (in the literary sense) to other articles. The criteria for inclusion is also far too broad, and provides completely unnecessary information which i wouldn't personally include on each ot the members articles, never mind a central record that serves absolutely no purpose. Perhaps we should have a page about how many kittens every man or woman who has ever served in the British Military has ever had. Put me down for 2. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a meaningful classification of these people. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and WP:not-a-directory. Buckshot06(prof) 11:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, or move. No unifying theme for an article. Only theme is that of military service and being British, thereby rendering the list incomplete (forever) and not particularly coherent. However, I recommend looking into a move to Wikibooks if possible, because the information seems well documented (though not up-to-date) and it may prove useful to future researchers on these particular individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippz (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wikipedia standards Kalivd (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SYN --T-rex 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save The research, while not original, could be useful to someone trying to understand the material circumstance of British military leaders or to get a sense of the social class to which they belonged. As to the criticism that the information is at only one point in their lives, I would respond that it is the only point in their lives that such comparative data is likely to be available, i.e., at the moment their wills were probated.

One could put all the info into the relevant Wikipedia biographical entries, though that would not answer the question of how this person's circumstance compares to those of his contemporaries. As to the sarcastic observation that Wikipedia might just as well put an article in about how many kittens each military figure had, I will not respond other than to say that the information is of sociological significance. Please do not view this material from a narrow, purely military, point of view. The material circumstances of an important class of people in a nation at a time when it was the dominant power in the world is of more than passing interest. Surely it is of greater significance than the minute details of minor campaigns, details found in Wikipedia in abundance ( details I support keeping). Is a danger not creeping into Wikipedia, that of narrow specialization, a preoccupation with viewing the world through one lens only? Knowledge is about making connections among things. These are facts taken from a prestigious source. The do not quite fit the mold of military history. So should they then be unavailable to interested generalists? Is military history only a hobby for some with rules about what is to be considered and what is not? Polycarp

Our only rule as to "what is to be considered and what is not" is: have other, authoritative sources considered this info before us or not? If the wealth of British military figiures has been the subject before, then we report on that. We don't create new areas of study though. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source reproducing and summarizing what secondary sources have produced qua studies, analysis, commentary, ... This is not creeping into Wikipedia, this has been a basic position since the beginning. Please check WP:OR for more on this. We are not saying that this page has no potential value, just that it is not fit for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IINFO. Protonk (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do the arguments that have been presented here for deletion also apply to List of British politicians by wealth at death? Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 20:30, 6 July 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.