Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rank (formation)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rank (formation)

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

Just a word definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Keep The pages in question are stubs, not dictionary-style entries. The essential differences in style between these and the common confusion between them are explained in detail at WP:DICDEF. There's plenty more that can be written about these concepts by reference to sources such as Elements of Military Art and History or Military Tactics. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is this not enfilade? "Rank" is simply half of "rank and file." It is like "X and Y," while "file" can refer to a particular tactic. This seems incorrect, and the lack of references is troubling, because it would be easy to find a dictionary that would define rank and assume it as a clipping of "rank and file." Hithladaeus (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a rank and a file denote two different things. When troops are lined up, the front rank is the line of troops standing shoulder to shoulder, a file refers to troops lined up one behind the other. It is not just a word definition, it is just a stub of an article relating to a military formation. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. They both denote different things. They're not just a dictionary definition, just a short stub about a military concept. I've recently found five sources that talk about the file.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a surprisingly huge literature on the different ways of structuring bodies of military personnel in the pre-modern war era, and so there should be plenty of scope to expand these articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nick-D and Tomandjerry211 there would appear to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2015 (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.