Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 'No consensus' - clearly the one thing that is shown from all the below, is that there is no consensus to delete - thus keep.  Glen  19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia

Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article fails Wikipedia:No original research, and is fancruft. A collection of conjectured aspects. The article has (cough) "references", but the references are merely points to mentions in fancruft, or spin off fiction (perhaps an author mentioned a rank of "Master Chief Petty Officer of the Starfleet" in one book, and that's therefore justification for conjecturing a rank, where the rank lies, and designing a badge for the conjectured and non-canon rank). The article even states, in one section that "The following are several variations of Admiralty insignia, as proposed in fanon sources of the Star Trek Expanded Universe". It's full of weasel terms and original work (classic weasel phrases such as "... it is plausible that ...", "... may be explained by ..." and "It has been also speculated that ..." Completely original research, much of it badly referenced (if at all) and unverified. Delete. Proto::type 11:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of ranks in Battlefield 2 WP:OR, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and nom. Don'f forget to delete those fair use images, too. MER-C 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reviewing that article, it says the article was deleted as a video game guide. That's clearly note the case here. -Husnock 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But it's just as bad. I've adjusted my opinion. MER-C 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP (with a cleanup/expansion of article) This article is enourmously referenced and contains no less than 17 directly cited sources for the ranks contained within. For that reason ALONE, one cannot seriously talk about deleting it since it is very clearly not original research and provides reference material to back up the claim. The ranks mentioned have also appeared in countless books, manuals, and comic books with some (like Branch Admiral) making live action apperances. In addition, this is but a section of the muc larger article on Starfleet ranks and was sub-paged since that article is getting too long. Perhaps a cleanup is needed, but certianly not a deletion on an article which has been worked on for over a year by several different users. I also invite voters to view the AfD debate on Starfleet ranks which resulted in an overwhealming "Keep" vote.
    • This is a synthesis of various facts, assembling in such a way as to form a collection of conjecture. Referencing the facts used to synthesise a conjectured Starfleet ranking system does not stop this being original research. See WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. Being worked on by several different cruftateers "people who enjoy writing fan articles based on fictional universes that advance non-canon original research and fan fiction" is also not a reason to keep anything that fails basic Wikipedia policy. Proto::type 11:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think its appropriate to call any Wikipedia user a "crufateer". That sounds a lot like name calling. -Husnock 11:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Cheerfully withdrawn, and apologies for the shorthand. Proto::type 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment On looking at other AfD, it seems to have been based on different concerns — they weren't worried about original research, they were worried about notability. All the info the other article contains is from official sources. It does link some fan sites, but as useful resources, not as references. So I don't think it sets a precedent for this article. Demiurge 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, sources aren't enough, they must be reliable sources. "Conjectural", "speculated", "it is plausible", "suggests that", "fanon sources" means that unfortunately this subject is not suitable for an encyclopædia article. (Clearly a lot of hard work has gone into it though, so why don't you submit it at the Star Trek wiki?) Demiurge 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The sources look pretty reliable and actually most of them fit the definition of "primary sources" on the very page you reference. Pocket books novels are the main source, followed by at least two live action productions where these insignia apperaed, not to mention material from FASA roleplaying which is considered quite well referenced. -Husnock 11:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Are the published sources non-trivial? In other words, do they actually have significant coverage of the rank, or do they just mention that some redshirt holds it, or show them on-screen with the insignia? Demiurge 12:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Without getting too deep into it, some ranks which are heavily referenced are Flag Admiral, Fleet captain (Star Trek), Commodore (Star Trek) with those holding no less than 8 to 10 mentions in Pocket books and FASA manuals. "Second Lieuenant Commander" is a costume error which appeared on the show and Branch Admiral is visable as being worn by DeForest Kelly in Encounter at Farpoint and also mentioned in FASA roleplaying. The "alternate rank pins" are from several sources, such as comic books and tech manuals covering material over a 20 year period. Hey, I am not saying this article couldn't use a major cleanup and some really good ext (I would do that if I had time), just to delete it...that seems like destroying other people's hard work espeically when we went to the trouble to source and reference everything. -Husnock 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • But you're using these references - and of the ones I could check, they just seem to be trivial mentions rather than articles / books / sections discussing these ranks - to construct a conjecture of what each rank means, and what its place is in the Star Trek universe. That is original research, which the article is comprised of, from top to tail, and will always be, due to the inherent nature of the topic. Proto::type 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I dont know what "trivial references" you are speaking of. A rank being mentioned 8 - 10 times in five or six different sources (such as Flag Admiral) is a well sourced occurence. -Husnock 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, There maybe sources but this is an encyclopedia not a Star Trek fan site. Debaser23 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats not really a valid reason to delete an article. You admit it has sources, but state it shouldn't be on here because this isn't a Star Trek fan site, but there are hundreds of other Star Trek articles as well as numerous Star Wars articles as well. -Husnock 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - You are right there are lots of other Star Trek pages which are probably equally irrelevant. As I said before this is no fan site it is an encyclopedia and surely this can be merged into anotehr article rather than having its own page. Debaser23 11:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The title is unfortunate, and some of the material could be salvaged into a "non-canon" section for the Starfleet ranks and insignia article. However, overall it's largely WP:OR. It's worth pointing out that one editors who was upset that Warrant officer (Star Trek) was deleted for WP:OR copy-and-pasted that deleted article into this one. --EEMeltonIV 11:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It should also be noted that he had permission to do that after the article was undeleted. He turned it into a redirect towards this article to avoid a problem with people who didnt want the article recreated (I also believe it was you who nominated the Warrant Officer article for deletion). -Husnock 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Writen sources are not original research. --Cat out 11:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Nomination is self conrtradictory. He agrees that article is sourced (and the material isn't from some fansite but instead from the book creative staff of the show). --Cat out 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this qualifies to be "speedy kept", see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Demiurge 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Cat, I am not arguing that the article is not sourced. It is. But the sources are for points of fact which the article uses to conjecture a multitude of fanon Starfleet ranks, and how they relate, both to one another and with the canon ranks. The synthesis of material for your own original work is original research. Did you even bother to read the nomination? Proto::type 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Fannon if notable is acceptable. The insignia mentioned here is from sources like star trek encyclopedia, a semi-cannon source. The ranks never appeared on the show itself but instead appeared on novels. Something mass published like a trek tech manual meets wikipedias notability criteria. NOR cannot apply since its sourced. Cannon/noncannon is not a deletion criteria. The novels were not written by some random fan on a forum keep that in mind. --Cat out 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft. We already have 18 separate articles on canonical Star Trek ranks and insignia (see Category:Star_Trek_ranks. This is a non-canon, conjectural article with unreliable sourcing. And what's wrong with the Memory Alpha wiki - that's where this stuff belongs. Wikipedia is not fan website host. Bwithh 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedias deletion criteria is not based on cannon. The number of articles there are is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with memory alpha, however its existance is not a deletion criteria. It would be vanity to have an article per conjectural rank however.

      The actual cited sources are not some random fansite instead ranks are from star trek encyclopedia and other tech manuals which are written by people who design the ranks themselves.

      --Cat out 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. As per EEMeltonIV above, the useful material can be merged into Starfleet ranks and insignia. I agree that there is too much speculative fancruft here for a notable separate article, in spite of the extensive sourcing, for some of the external "verification" relied upon here is itself far removed from primary material. Darcyj 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Negative. This article was broken out of that article because it got too large. As it stands article is above 32k limit and thats not counting images. --Cat out 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • In that case, there is way too much material. This level of detail, on a subject three-times removed from primary sources, does not belong in Wikipedia. Take it to Memory Alpha, and place a link in the Wikipedia article mentioned above. Darcyj 11:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: I must state that the motivation for this deletion appears to be over a previous VfD which was undeleted, with the nominator stating that this prompted the deletion nomination on this article. This very much appears like an effort to delete the parent article since the sub-article was undeleted and the nominator had an issue with this. If so, this entire VfD should be cancelled as there appears to be conflicting interests at work here. -Husnock 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd say there was a clear conflict of interests here. On one side, we have people trying to improve the encyclopedia. One the other, we have people trying to insert crap like this (not merely aspects of a fictional universe, but conjectured aspects, no less). The two positions cannot be reconciled. Either we're writing an encyclopedia, or we're indiscriminately collecting conjectured aspects of a fictional universe. I know, it's a tough call. Hint: one of our absolute non-negotiable word-of-Jimbo überpolicies might be applicable here. Chris cheese whine 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So, you're calling this article "crap"? Want to take shots at those who worked on it too? Perhaps another policy to review is Wikipedia:Civility -Husnock 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • As you're an administrator yourself, Husnock, you will be, of course, au fait with other policies such as WP:NOR, and WP:AGF, yet you seem to be choosing to ignore them. Proto::type 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I've already stated that this isnt original research since it has 17 sources cited, but others seem to be ignoring that. As far a good faith, its hard to do when an article this well documented and researched is blasted with a deletion vote with this many people slamming it. And, I have never called an article *names* or said any article is "crap". That is just uncalled for. -Husnock 13:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
            • As has already been stated, the sources aren't realiable, and the material analyses them, but you seem to be ignoring that. PS- You forgot your Spiderman costume. Chris cheese whine 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm sure you would take things seriously, too, if an article over a year in the making was this badly blasted, this quickly, then someone showed up and called it crap. Yet another policy to review is: kicking people when they're down. No matter, I have plans to rebuild this from the ashes into a proper article. -Husnock 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Husnock, you clearly do not understand. It could have a million sources, a billion sources, and could still be original research, no matter how many times you state it is not - please, read what other people are writing. A synthesis of references to achieve your own conjecture is original research. Read the policy; you have now been provided with the link a good twenty times. As for 'uncalled for', you have, of course, referred to me as a 'joker' [1], and questioned every delete voter's good faith [2], but we'll let those slide. Proto::type 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I stated on the noticeboard and the talk page here that my intent was to discuss what opinions are available if one feels that an article has been unfairly nominated for deletion. And as for a joker, thats never been on my list of vulgar names, but it was and is withdrawn just as you withdrew calling me a crufateer above [3]. You are going to win this, anyway, the article will be deleted. I hope you're happy. Congratulations. -Husnock 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "Conjectural ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia which have never appeared in a live action Star Trek production", i.e. this is original research. The fact that there are many references does not disprove the claim that this is original research ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"), the opposite really, if it weren't original research it would only be necessary to cite a handful of sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As the article begins, "Conjectural ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia which have never appeared in a live action Star Trek production". Fictional ranks which do not even exist in the fictional universe in which they are portrayed? Please! The nomination seems to em to be perfectly accurate: this is a textbook example of the type of novel synthesis which is banned by policy and explicitly stated as being a key reason for that policy. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You've missed a point. The universe includes more than just films and television shows. It includes books, too. The article says that although the ranks have not appeared in a live action Star Trek production, they have appeared in books, such as novels and technical manuals. Uncle G 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trek fan here, but c'mon, Guy said it well just above: "fictional ranks which do not even exist in the fictional universe in which they are portrayed"?! Take it to Memory Alpha. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am absolutely horrified how so many Wiki users could so coldly delete an article which contains sources and has been worked in for over a year by well established users. I guess this article is dead then. I am taking measures to at least save some parts of it to rebuild it into a more encyclopedia article. Maybe "Alternate ranks and insignia of Star Trek" or something like that. BTW- if this thing is deleted, then NO WAY should Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek be allowed to live. All VfDers go and kill that one as well, I'll actually help. -Husnock 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — The title says it all "conjectural" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the way in which the article is written clearly violates WP:OR and WP:RS. The article basically not only states it's own conjectural nature but even has comments with sources where the SOURCES say they're making this up, conjecturing, speculating, and extrapolating. Husnock is violating WP:POINT if he claims this doesn't violate those policies, and clearly has a sense of ownership that is disturbing to see in an admin. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you saying I'm disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? To quote from the very policy you cite: If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do state your case on AfD in favour of the article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples. don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on AfD in one day in order to try to save it. I am trying to fight for this article since noone else well. This isnt article ownership (Coolcat has worked on it more than I have) and it certianly isnt "contemptable" as you stated to my inquiry on the noticeboard [4] (which was a valid question...what does one do during a vote if they feel it is unfair...and now I have my answer: nothing, wait untill its over). -Husnock 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An interesting read with a lot of supposition, but WP:OR does not a good article make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous comments. Recury 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Classic OR synthesis--relies on novels (primary sources), but then makes "conjectures" based on those; fancruft. JChap2007 14:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? The novels feature the rank. the technical manuals display the insignia. Novels are not fancruft but instead primary sources as you ppoint out. --Cat out 14:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Cat, we've lost this one. I have an idea to rebuild the material into a proper Wikipedia article that will not be orginial research but it will take a great deal of time to accomplish. -Husnock 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • You are on your own. I am leavening wikipedia hopefully for forever. No common sense is left here. --Cat out 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As an example of what I'm talking about, the first rank mentioned is warrant officer. This entry is based on an insignia on one character's shirt collar, followed by conjecture (with no sources) on what rank he might be. This is classic OR synthesis (relying on a primary source and then drawing conclusions based on that source). This method is pursued throughout the article and is its fatal flaw. Also, I'm calling the article, not the novels, fancruft. Normally I try to avoid such terms but as this seems a classic case. JChap2007 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I'm not sure what is more ludicrous, this article or Husnock bringing this AfD to the Admin Noticeboard, as if there was some vast conspiracy at work to get rid of his precious article which required the attention of administrators. This is simply a shameful action to be undertaken by an admin. There's a good reason the title of this article contains the word "conjectural," and it's that- no matter how many references there are- this is still original research. It's also extreme fancruft with very low notability. -- Kicking222 15:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've already explained at least three times that I had a question about what someone could do if they felt an article was being unfairly nominated and if any action could be taken during the vote. I posted to the talk page here to let everyone know I had these concerns. The question was answered and the matter is closed. -Husnock 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds like an issue to bring up on the deletion discussion page. --EEMeltonIV 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite to remove WP:OR. That should end up with a stub that goes no further than its sources and still says something about what is a verifiable phenomenon (some people like to conjecture about Star Trek insignia for some reason). But as this is not a very notable phenomenon, it doesn't need its own article. Once rewritten, merge back into the Star Trek canon article or a canon section of the Starfleet ranks and insignia article (it will fit if it is made small enough - the large version of the article doesn't belong at Wikipedia). Carcharoth 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I just dont understand you people. One day you declare the show itself an unacceptable source and declare sources like star trek encyclopedia acceptable, the other day you say the exact opposite. make up your mind. --Cat out 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Betacommand attempted to close this one, claiming it to be a bad faith nomination. I can't see anything here that would suggest it to be so, the reasons provided seem reasonable, and the consensus seems to be toward deletion on the grounds of Wikipedia:original research. Bad faith or not, the reasons are valid, and supported by the debate. Chris cheese whine 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (no vote) I RVed back Betacommands (sorry, the reclosure was Bastique) RV to reclose. Procedural: complete AFD period. Incivility is not (that I am aware) grounds for closure. (Apologies for using RV but was faster.) RJFJR 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Star Trek is a major cultural phenomenon, and whether or not the novels and fannish scholarly apparatus are considered canonical or not, they pertain to a fictional universe of sufficient notability to support an article like this one. The word "conjectural" in the title might be confusing at first but the nature of the sources is sufficiently explained in the article, including the opening paragraph. Newyorkbrad 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    BRad, noone's denying the validity of the sources, nor are the denying the notability of such facts. The issue is that these facts are then extrapolated into constructing a series of conjectures about what these ranks could be. This is the purpose of the article, which makes the article in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy on original research. Proto::type 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:NOR is not applicable to this particular article which is imminently sourceable and certainly worth maintaining. We don't delete articles such as this, we make them better. Bastiq▼e demandez 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:NOR is applicable to every article. Every article needs to be properly sourced, and demonstrate that other people have done the research, and that we don't have to repeat it to verify it. There are no exceptions (THIS MEANS YOU!). Chris cheese whine 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. In addition, Betacommand should be strongly censured for attempted perversion of the AfD process. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Newyorkbrad, Bastique et al and suggest that some people need to consider the long-term consequences of their excessively-narrow interpretation of WP:OR. —Phil | Talk 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't a narrow interpretation, it's the entire freaking point. The act of adding footnotes to original research doesn't transform it into something else. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have changed the title to reflect these as *alternate* ranks instead of conjectured ranks, since the very name of the article was one of the major points to its deletion. -Husnock 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    It is usually frowned upon to move the associated AfD page with it. What usually happens is that the link to the discussion on the article is pointed to the original discussion location. I am starting to become suspicious of your motives. Chris cheese whine 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    I moved everything to avoid redirects. if I was wrong, by all means revert. And my "motives"? What exactly are you suggesting? -Husnock 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    You don't avoid redirects by moving pages. You bypass then by changing the links to point to the right place. The AfD discussion is usually supposed to stay where it is, to make sure Bad Things don't happen to people who have them on their watchlist. Chris cheese whine 18:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    I thought thats what I did, changing the links to the right place. And I think you are Nebor from the Planet Vaxia! (you're user page said you have a sense of humor). -Husnock 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The original name says it all - conjectural. Wikipedia is not in the business of conjecture. Delete. --humblefool® 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thats why I moved it, renamed it, and am working on fixing it. A rewrite is better than a delete. -Husnock 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong Keep the internal references to wiki pages is a manor of citing the TV shows them selves. just because someone linked them to the corresponding wikipedia page does not invalidte the source. please tell me how
is not a RS if we cant source the fiction that created the subject then why even ever have an encyclopedia? If a user does not do some research how can an encyclopedia be written? without research we have two options for creating articles, 1. copypaste then from some where else. 2. just summarize one other page. I agree that this article needs a re-write, but since when is an article that needs help deleted? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I will explain the why this article should be closed.
    • 1. the (cough) "references" in the nom point to contempt for the writers of this article.
    • 2. merely points to mentions in fancruft, or spin off fiction clearly shows that they do not understand that the non TV fiction is completely valid and some of those elements have had a major impact on the star trek universe.
    • 3. the sources of the star trek books may not be "cannonal" but that only means that they were not adopted into the official time line. but yes some research may be needed if you want to check those sources. but since when have books been OR?
    • 4. some of the users that are trying to get this deleted are the same that tried to delete Warrant officer (Star Trek) which was over turned
    • 5. (this just came up) I am starting to become suspicious of your motives. since WHEN is it a bad Idea to IMPROVE articles instead of deleteing them
Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to bury the hatchet with some of these users but I have to say I kind of agree with you, Beta. The original nomination really sounded to me like :I dont like this article so lets delete it" and thus ignored the work and sourcing that has gone into it. I am *trying* to do a rewrite but it will take longer than the 5 days this article has. Thanks, though, for telling us how you feel. -Husnock 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A description of ranks used in notable books, et al, but not in the TV shows or films would seem okay, but this quickly degenerates into being a compilation of speculation. Some have said it's not OR because it compiles other people's speculation, but it's still just a collection of imaginative hypotheses about things that don't actually exist, which doesn't sound very encyclopedic. --Walor 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it may have references, but the resulting article is a synthesis of these facts, and thus is original research. -- Whpq 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong Keep Our job is not to delete articles such as this just because someone feels there is other source inof that may overlap, but rather to build on them and make them better. We have sourced material and clearly well thought out . Seeing as how Star Trek is such a cultural phenomon a page such as this can be quite helpful and encycpledic. Why do I get the feeling that some people simply have their panties in a bunch?

I second Betacommand “If a user does not do some research how can an encyclopedia be written”? By deleating such things you are no better than the rabble rousers who burned books simply because they didn’t see any value in them. KEEP KEEP KEEP Mystar 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • 'I like it, it is useful' is never a valid reason for keeping such an article on an encyclopaedia. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Conjecture, OR, non-reliable sources. The trifecta there, I think. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - "The article is sourced, it is the conjecture after the sourced material that is unsourced" - So remove the conjecture. We should improve this article, not delete it. VegaDark 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Nobody's denying the facts in the article are not sourced. Removing all the unsourced OR produced as a synthesis of these facts, reaching original conclusions based on extrapolations of a smallish number of facts, would leave a bunch of links to Wikipedia articles, a few reference to Star Trek novella, and a couple to a Star Trek fansite, with no content remaining. Proto::type 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, delete any unsourced parts of it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sourcing is not the problem - nobody is denying that the article is sourced. The problem is what the article does (and inherently will always do, due to the nature of the article) is synthesize these sources to produce its own conclusions and opinion. Proto::type 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - complete fancruft, possible OR/Or synthesis concerns, and just generally unencyclopaedic. Please see WP:DUMB for some excellent points about fancruft. Moreschi 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Those of you suggesting that we remove the OR and retain the article are missing a critical point: we already have Starfleet ranks and insignia which is the non-OR version of this. This article is OR by design. Friday (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - agreed. And moving the page has obscured this to some degree. The current artcile is "alternate" ranks and insignia, but the original title made it too obvious that this was all orignial research with the name conjectural ranks and insignia. -- Whpq 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could not find any reliable sources for the majority of assertions made in this article. Such speculation belongs on the Star Trek Wiki. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment a lot of heat in this one and not so much light. I do not buy the OR charge or the V charge, this material is adequately sourced. Arguing for deletion on those grounds is flawed, in my view, sorry... But I nevertheless have my doubts about whether this is a keep, because I'm not seeing this as of general interest in a general purpose encyclopedia. This certainly could go to Memory Alpha, they take stuff from here all the time, IF they want it. If THEY don't want it, maybe we don't either. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm more than satisfied with the validity of the subject and the sources. We need more articles like this if we want to serve the general interest of readers of a general purpose encyclopedia. --JJay 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    The subject may (or may not) be valid - this is not the question at hand. The sources may (or may not) be valid - this is not the question at hand. Whether the article is original research is the question at hand (and I believe that it is). Your keep !vote completely fails to address the concerns of the nomination. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original-research-o-rama -- the point about sources, which seems to have escaped many, is that they should be referencing the specific claims and not being used to prop up claims being made by the article author: "Source X says Thing Y", not "Thing Y, because I believe that's implied by Source X". And then there's the what Guy said, "Fictional ranks which do not even exist in the fictional universe in which they are portrayed?" Oy. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    All the images on the article are from the cited sources. The ranks do exist in the fictional universe, just not canon. --Cat out 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I'm a Star Trek fan, I like fancruft articles, and I recently (within the past week) had an article I created "Speedy Delete"d because 11 albums weren't enough to be a notable artist. (These are things that would lead me to vote for keeping this article.) But, this article is reaching even for fancruft. Val42 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as originaly synthesis of information. I think Calton may have said it best, although in a somewhat sarcastic manner. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR per Calton, Arthur Rubin, et al. I don't see anything to merge but the main Star Fleet ranks article should certainly not be limited to canonical ranks (if they can be properly sourced). Eluchil404 16:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    They are properly sourced. WP:OR CANT apply. Star Fleet ranks article is too large so the article was arbitrarily broken apart into two, one being this. --Cat out 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary edit point

  • Delete. Friday's point is quite valid. This article can only ever be original research. I'm a Star Trek fan as well, but come on, this is ridiculous. Sourcing sucks- while there are many references, one reference admits that it's mainly conjecture, and most are to a single roleplaying manual that is going to consist of original research. That leaves just a few non-controversial references that don't apply to the meat of the article. Transwiki to Memory Alpha, or nuke the thing- either way, it doesn't fit our policies. Ral315 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yes it is someone elses published original research which becomes a valid source. All articles are based on someone elses original research (there needs to be a study by someone). CIA world factbook for instance is original research by the CIA. This is exactly what Original research is not:
    WP:OR in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.
    All the insignia presented (pictures) has been published in the reputable sourced material. I have not made them up on my own. This article is not a featured article so there is room for major improvement.
    We have lots of articles on non-cannon trek such as Star Trek: The Animated Series (which isnt even semi-cannon unlike tech manuals used in this article) or the the armada of novels writen by a variety of authors. None of which is fancruft but instead non-cannon publication.
    The creative staff that worked for the show (who wrote the sourced books) are definately NOT random 'fans'... So the entire 'fan-constructs' argument really has no basis.
    --Cat out 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was wondering when someone would get around to proposing these for deletion: they are pure fan-constructs. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. This is perhaps more appropriate to Memory Alpha than Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Memory alpha focuses on cannon to my knowledge. The license of my work is GFDL, Memory Alphas license is fair use and hence is not compatible. This is NOT original research. --Cat out 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research synthesis of non-notable material. -- Alan McBeth 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe this article is sourced pretty well, a lot more than some of the other articles that we have. However, if the consenus is to delete the article, then would it be feasible to beam this over to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Incompatible license. They do fair use we do gfdl. --Cat out 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Incidentally, there is no such thing as a "fair use" license, but I have no idea what "Memory Alpha"'s licensing terms are. Regardless, a Star Trek specific project may be where this sort of stuff should go. Jkelly 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • They use the Cc-by-nc-2.5 license (attribution non-commercial). Not entirely fair use, since you don't need to rationalise use of the material if you're not making a profit off of it, but not free enough for Wikipedia. Which I believe was a major factor in choosing the licence, since they didn't want to be just another Wikipedia fork. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the general sentiment of the past few contributors. This is largely an OR synthesis of sparse sources, and even where properly sourced, a list of ranks that are fictional even in relation to a fictional universe is just not a proper (read: notable) subject matter for a general-interest encyclopedia unless such ranks have a compelling case for notability (substantial media coverage, etc.), which is absent here. Also, what's with this nonsense of messing around with this AfD? Sandstein 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - re-adding a comment I made further up the page, in case it hasn't been noticed in all the noise here: "[This] is a verifiable phenomenon (some people like to conjecture about Star Trek insignia for some reason). But as this is not a very notable phenomenon, it doesn't need its own article. Once rewritten, merge back into the Star Trek canon article or a canon section of the Starfleet ranks and insignia article (it will fit if it is made small enough - the large version of the article doesn't belong at Wikipedia)." I would be interested to hear what the defenders of this article think about this. Carcharoth 11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    So if I create a rank insignia for a TV show it becomes notable even if the rank appears for a few frames. But if I create a rank insignia for for the tens of books written then it becomes non-notable? --Cat out 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    If a rank is created in a Star Trek book, then that can be noted. If an insignia design is given in a book somewhere, then that can be noted as well. If someone writes about a rank insignia appearing in a Star Trek show or film, then that can be noted somewhere. If a website writes lots about different actual and theorised Star Trek insignia, that can be noted somewhere. The insignia can be covered to a certain degree, but the real thing that a Wikipedia article should be focussing on is why this topic is important enough to warrant an article. What impact has this topic had on society in general? Who has written about this topic and why? If no-one bothers to write about it, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Does that help? Carcharoth 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - apparently Memory Alpha is not suitable. How about Memory Beta? Carcharoth 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Maybe the article needs tidying up and some outright speculation removed, but it doesn't need to be deleted. In a lot of cases, if something is non-canon then it's non-notable, but I don't think that's the case with Star Trek - there is so much non-canon information, and some of it is very well known, and I think it's notable in it's own right. The only reason to delete it left is it being badly sourced, but that's not a good reason - we delete articles that aren't sourced at all and can't be sourced, we don't delete articles just because they're not well sourced at the moment. --Tango 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it's nominated for deletion as it's original research. Proto::type 10:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep And make better. The Wiki "Death Penalty" this article does not deserve. Jenolen speak it! 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    No valid reason for keeping. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please see commentaries by bastique and phil boswell this is not original research and has many good sources too Yuckfoo 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Why is it not original research? Please back this claim. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki to Memory Alpha this IS sourced... but with written materials. It's not original research or conjecture, it is a compilation of speculative material from various published sources.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a compilation of speculative material being used to speculate further on what it could mean. How is that not conjecture? Proto::type 10:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Major rework There are several sections of that article that I believe should go:
- Admiral's insignia section: conjecture on an outside website is still conjecture.
- Ranks made by a pin company: If such insignia haven't been shown in a comprehensive work like the Star Trek Encyclopedia, I'm suspicious... it seems like Krusty-branding something for a quick buck.
- Costume errors: I do NOT want to see that level of detail in Wikipedia articles. Would you want a Wikipedia article on a certain war movie to show a picture of a background officer's decorations, then spend a paragraph describing how certain ribbons are in the wrong order?
Those sections do not meet the article's own standards of "have been mentioned so frequently in literature and fan sources". Some of the other ranks and insignia in the article have a certain level of authenticity, being mentioned in novels or official publications. But leaving the bad sections there brings down the credibility of the whole article. Quack 688 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • None of the article is credible, as it's inherently comprised of conjecture. Reducing to non-original research would leave us with a list of 17 links to occasional references to (mainly non-canon) ranks; many of the links are internal anyway, which is self referencing. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Self referance? You seem to be most confused today. Those links are to EPISODES and BOOKS. There happen to be articles about them but the linked article is NOT the source. --Cat out 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Five of the references are to Wikipedia articles. For example, reference 1, which discusses the non-canon badge of a Lieutenant Commander, is to In a Mirror, Darkly (Enterprise episode) (the second part). This article then contains no mention, at all, of the Lieutenant Commander rank. The episode itself, as far as I can tell from the synopsises I went through ([5], [6], and [7] (and its sublinks)) make no mention of an alternate Lieutenant Commander rank/insignia. So there is clearly conjecture as to the nature of this rank, what it means, etc. I only checked this one in great detail, but a brief run through the others doesn't suggest they are much different. Proto::► 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    I do not care about star trek site, or the wikipedia article about the episode. In the actual episode the mirror (our) Hoshi Sato is said in dialog "to retire from starfleet with the rank of Lieutenant commander". This information is acquired from the database of the future defiant captured by Tholians in the (evil) mirror universe. That is in dialog and her bio is actually put on screen (there was in fact a post-production commentary about it). I can go into greater detail if you like. So the rank did exist by the time of her retire. However we do not know if the rank existed prior. Hence it is not necessarily canon. --Cat out 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    "Mainly non-canon" and "many of the links are internal" implies that some of them are valid. We need to look at these ranks, keep the ones based on official sources and remove the rest. Whether the valid ones stay on this page afterwards, or be merged into the main ranks page, is another question - that depends on how many are left. But you don't need to delete the good ones to get to the bad ones - use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Quack 688 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. Some of the admiral insignia presented there is cannon. Contrast with Starfleet ranks and insignia
    The admiral rank insignia on the linked fan page references star trek encyclopedia. Fan site is there for our conviniance. I agree with you that there needs to be better citation for all that. As for other stuff... Best to discuss those on article talk page. :) --Cat out 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Does the ST Encyclopedia really have four different versions of original series flag officer insignia? Sounds damn messy if it does. Re: those fan sites (refs 18 & 19 in the article) - I had a look there, and didn't see any mention of their sources - but if they're from the ST Encyclopedia, that's what should be listed as the reference. Since you've got the images in the table here already, there's no need to reference fan sites which show the same insignia.
Based on the comments made here, you'll need to remove all the speculative content if you want the page to survive in any form. (I've known abusive commissioned officers and warrant officers - Kosinski's "disrespect to superior officers" isn't enough to base any claims on where he fits in, or what the next insignia above and below him are. ) Quack 688 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not certain. I believe there are different competing sources. There are three versions of star trek encyclopedia. Each updated and sometimes existing data is altered. There are also star trek tech manuals and etc. I believe it is from that kind of citation. I do not posses all the books linked there. Husnock owns all of the books (including the ones I do not have) but unfortunately he is currently deployed and is far away from all his resources. If anyone else has the cited books that would make it easier.
Yes, well... I really want to keep article related discussion at its talk page... Can we please do that :) Afd is an unconfortable place to discuss this.
--Cat out 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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.