List of roles in the British Army: The subject itself fails WP:GNG as there is literature about some roles, but there are not sufficient sources about the "the roles in the British Army".  Redirects are costly .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can't find any article like this for other nations.   Most of the entries don't link to their own articles.   There is Template:British_Army_navbox , Template:British Airborne Forces , and Template:British Infantry already.  D r e a m Focus 18:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, we do have List of United States Navy ratings , List of United States Naval officer designators , List of United States Coast Guard ratings , Air Force Specialty Code , List of United States Marine Corps MOS , List of United States Army careers .  The last two in particular are pretty similar to this list.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DreamFocus, These templates you listed have absolutely nothing to do with the page.  There is a list of USMC MOS's (roles), and a list of US Army careers, this is the exact same.  RAFRegtRockApe ( talk ) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per NLIST.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTCAREERCOUNSELLOR .  And " Armoured AS90 Gunner" is really absurd; overspecialisation rears its ugly head.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Clarityfiend : you really should strike or re-word that.  Referring to someone's job title like that is just insulting.  (Definitely a far cry from 'thank you for your service'.) jmho - w o lf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I find a really specialized job for one specific weapon, not a type of weapon like self-propelled guns in general, but one and only one, to be odd.  It is not intended to be insulting, nor do I consider it reasonable for someone to take offense at a jibe at a job title.  I'm not spitting on someone's flag; it's a freaking job title.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, yes... well I'm sure all the AS90 operators out there will comforted by your words.  </sarcasm> - w o lf 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be because it's the only SPG that the British Army currently uses!  If they used more than one then the job title probably would be a generalised one for all SPGs.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, well then, carry on.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not overspecialisation at all.  It refers to a gunner on a self-propelled gun, as opposed to a gunner on a towed gun.  I'm guessing there is a substantial amount of difference.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm very confused on how you think this is overspecialisation? Why is Armoured AS90 gunner so absurd? What a strange hilarious comment. It is a specific Army role on a specific gun which specific artillery regiments are solely trained on and operate in. RAFRegtRockApe ( talk ) 14:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you know anything about the Army to be so confident in saying this? Can you help me understand how 91F Small Arms/Towed Artillery Repairer or 94H Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) Maintenance Support Specialist for example on the List of United States Army careers page is not overspecialisation, if AS90 Gunner is? RAFRegtRockApe ( talk ) 15:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Calling people's comments hilarious is not helpful. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nor is saying that an official designation is "really absurd". -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It needs expansion, but I don't see there's a problem with it.  These are official job titles of roles within the British Army, no different from similar roles in the United States military.  It's not a good article at the moment, but it could be much better, especially if it includes historical roles that no longer exist and a lot more information on the roles.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I'm sure I don't (or shouldn't) need to add that what's relevant at AfD is the notability of the topic, not the current state of article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my reply here .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Category:Military specialisms by country These articles are common, and do provide valid information that benefits the encyclopedia.  D r e a m Focus 17:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dream Focus : Yours is not a policy-based argument.  You are forwarding ILIKEIT inclusionism just as others are doing.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , List of United States Army careers exists therefore List of British Army roles should.  There's no difference.  RAFRegtRockApe ( talk ) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ RAFRegtRockApe : See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS .  Also, you are the editor who created this.  It is a norm for you to announce that here, if you comment at all.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't it more common for the article creator to comment/vote rather than not?  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, you are the editor who created this.  It is a norm for you to announce that here, if you comment at all.  No, that is completely untrue.  The creator is perfectly entitled to express an opinion and has no obligation whatsoever to announce that they are the creator.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No Chris, that is not "the norm", and it should not even be expected.  Someone can create a legitimate stub that can then be drastically changed by another user or users.  Demanding they attach to their ! vote a declaration that they initially created the article in question seems like a means to diminsh the weight of their ! vote.  Besides, their name is already attached at the top of the article, any closing admin can easily take note of that.  (And you already know all of this.) - w o lf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, all information is sourced and of benefit to wikipedia Dolphinwaxer ( talk ) 13:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning delete , unless some kind of codification can be added comparable to the U.S. Army list.  How can I tell from this list, for example, whether "plumber" is a designated specialization, or just a task that personnel with a more generalized designation sometimes undertake?  BD2412 T 00:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Sounds like a suggestion for improvement, not an argument for deletion.  - w o lf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] ...all of these are a soldiers exact and only job.  They're all designated specializations.  There is no MOS code like the US military.  RAFRegtRockApe ( talk ) 13:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ RAFRegtRockApe : Is there a source for the proposition that "these are a soldiers exact and only job", and these are "all designated specializations"?  MOS code or not, is there an official list somewhere of designated specializations?  BD2412 T 04:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Surely it does not make a list any less valid because the British Armed Forces do not use codes for specialisations like the US military?  That would be leaning towards making Wikipedia Americanocentric.  "They don't do it like we do it so it's not a valid article".  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Necrothesp & RAFRegtRockApe.  - w o lf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now, seems encyclopedic.  But open to potential reorganization of this and other similar topics (for example List of Roman army unit types ) in the future.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Keep has a sizable majority, but delete arguments have a firmer grounding in policy.  I considered closing as no consensus at this time but I think this can benefit from another relist despite the amount of discussion thus far.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep by the Arthur Mee children's encyclopaedia test: "Is this a list a reasonable reader of an encyclopaedia would expect to see?"  Yes, it is; it's exactly the sort of stuff I used to go looking for when I was a kid.  We would be failing my inner child if we delete this.  Elemimele ( talk ) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Big enough to have its own page.  Editorkamran ( talk ) 04:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Warrants its own article.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:25, 22 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus