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. Sandstein 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generals and admirals of World War I and World War II[edit]

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

This list is an amalgamation of topics that together simply do not make sense in NPOV way. Why mix World War I and World War II leaders? Why mix admirals and generals? Furthermore, the author(s) of this page have insisted on including only the "notable" generals and admirals AKA whichever ones they deem important or relevant enough. The lead reads "The following list includes notable World War I generals and admirals who also served in some capacity with their country's military during World War II, either in command of frontline troops, as reservists, in an administrative role, or in an honorary position as in the case of von Bohm-Ermoli. A few, such as Mannerheim or Smuts, had been generals before the war, but the majority were promoted after 1914. This list excludes World War I veterans who were promoted to general after 1918, such as George S. Patton, Charles De Gaulle, or Bernard Montgomery, and generals from countries that participated in World War I but were neutral during World War II, such as Turkish field marshal Fevzi Çakmak." (it pays to see the remainder of the body text in this article under "Axis" to see how the authors define their own criteria without any basis in sources). Noting this alongside the fact that the article only has two measly citations to a source of dubious quality for two of the list points, this is essentially an essay list. No sources as far as I know have established the notability of WWI generals and admirals that "served in some capacity with their country's military" during WWII. Note that we also have more proper lists such as Axis leaders of World War II, Allied leaders of World War II, and Allied leaders of World War I that handle the information as it should be (I say this to emphasize that there is nothing to salvage from this article.) Indy beetle (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable intersection, no need to conflate the two wars, doing so creates multiple overlap problems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's still a work in progress which, when finished, will provide military historians with the names of every WWI general who participated in WWII. Admirals, being the naval counterpart to generals, may also receive their own article, or a separate section in this one. None of the other three articles listed contain information about the wars in which the leaders served, or (for the article on WWII generals) the rank they held in November 1918. The article on leaders doesn't distinguish between civilians and military officers. It also splits the Axis and Allies into two separate articles, rather than having everything on one page for ease of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have an opinion to share on whether this sort of thing should be kept, but if this is supposed to be an intersection of people who were generals or admirals in both wars, the current article title doesn't convey that. — Warren. ‘ talk , 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is a really bizarre topic for a list. Why would we mix two different wars? Since we already have the other list articles mentioned above, we can safely delete this without losing anything.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable list, in and of itself, subjective, incomplete amalgamation. Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What if the admirals were removed and the article renamed to its original title Generals of World War I and World War II? The references have also been updated, although I think they are unnecessary because all the info is in the article about the individual general — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why mix the generals of two different wars together? Especially under this contrived criteria? Also sourcing for any list on Wikipedia or any article is of the utmost importance. I could maybe see a "List of Allied military leaders of World War I" as fork of the Allied leaders of World War I list or similar. At any rate, I'd talk it over with the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history before creating such a list. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article only includes individuals who served as generals in both wars (being promoted to general before 1918, and still in service with their country's military after 1939). The two World Wars were less than 20 years apart, and the First had a big impact on the Second. If the title is confusing, I'm open to suggestions for an alternative.

Comment - Renamed page to World War I generals who served in World War II. Hopefully this will be less confusing for readers.

Weak keep – mildly interesting, the new name is a vast improvement, I was going to suggest Admirals and generals of World War I who served in World War II. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Excellent suggestion Cavalryman. I'll change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Passing off a list as an article is confusing. And I am led to wonder, What is the utility of this list?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not meet WP:LISTN; an unencyclopedic cross categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is different Coffman. It would be an unencyclopedic cross categorization if it was only about British or Americans who served as generals in both world wars. As you can see however this article includes generals from every country, and both Axis and Allies. User:53zodiac —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 18 January 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.