Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek (3rd nomination)


 * 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 Move to WikiSpace and Delete. Cbrown1023 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek

 * — (View AfD)

There have recently been several Star Trek rank articles brought up or deletion, most of which were far better sourced and referenced than this one (like this one). This article is pure original research, with broken image links, and little or no sorucing except material taken from private web pages. Should be deleted as unreferenced and unsourced Husnock 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix the picture links. It does appear to have sources and looks pretty decent. I would also suggest expanding the page to have actual comparisons (i.e. talking about how they compare). TJ Spyke 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- lack of sources for the ranks themselves isn't the problem. There are no sources (and IMH can never be) for the cross-species comparisons of ranks which are the article's purpose. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR/synthesis, not to mention non-notable. --EEMeltonIV 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis, since the table format makes claims it can't prove. By this table, for example, a Cardassian Gil is strictly higher than a Romulan Centurion, when there is absolutely no evidence to make this claim. The Klingon ranks claim to be sourced, and the Bajoran insignia look familiar - if some sources for these can be verified, I'd like to move them onto the appropriate articles before deleting this one. Quack 688 11:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pre Quack 688. The proper place for listing the rank insignia is at the articles of those various Star Trek races. How a rank in one species relates to ranks of another is some of the most ridiculous OR Wikipedia has ever seen. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - An interesting and informative article for anyone trying to understand the subject, although it could certainly do with some clear up and expansion. --Hibernian 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if this were properly sourced, this is going into too much detail for a fictional subject. Recury 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No support in reliable sources for the notion that the ranks the article calls comparable in fact are, so this is classic OR synthesis. JChap2007 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Star Trek or Keep. Just H 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No reason given for this 'keep'. AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion - please provide a reason for your argument. Proto ::  ►  11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR/synthesis & cruft. btw, the edit button for this section on the main afd listing is not working properly Bwithh 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Quack 688, WJBscribe and WP:NOR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no original research, thank you. Proto ::  ►  13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userified. All those ranks did appear on the show. Same ridiculous OR nonsense. I'll work and clean the article over time which will happen when I feel like it. -- Cat out 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem isn't with the ranks. They have a place on the articles concerning each race. The OR problem comes with the comparissons i.e. this rank for species A is equivalent to that rank for species B. That has never been said on the show, and is pure speculation... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes damn it. I will rewrite it in such a way it wont be a comparasion chart anymore. It will instead be "other ranks and insignia" as in ranks of klingons and romulans and etc. Just let it rest on my userspace and close this afd. Speed up the process. -- Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"*Comment: Coolcat redirected the main article to his user page, breaking the link and now this AfD is actually an orphan. I think Coolcat wanted to establish a project page, but in doing so broke all the links.  Can someone repair this? -Husnock 07:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I userified it, what MORE do you want? -- Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Move reversed. Coolcat, if the article is deleted, I can provide you with a copy, but please do not move pages in this manner while they are at AFD. Proto ::  ►  11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot (and will not) work if you delete the history. People who write articles NEED the page history. -- Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about deleting the history? I'll undelete the entire thing including its entire history, move the entire thing to your userspace, and delete the auto-created redirect from article space.  That's what providing you with a copy means.  Giving you just the latest copy for you to work on would be a breach of GFDL.  However - userfying the article before the AFD is closed means that no community decision would be reached, and you could just move it back if it were deleted, wasting everyone's time and sidestepping the deletion process.  This is not acceptable, so it will stay where it is until the consensus is reached.   Proto ::  ►  12:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You could have simply said 'I will userify it after the afd is closed'. Rather than complicating it. -- Cat out 12:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - OR or not, this is unencyclopaedic Trekkiecruft. Beam it up, admins! Moreschi 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy and Delete per Husnock and Cool Cat above. Eluchil404 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The sourcing here is quite poor. Sources are only cited for the Klingons and Starfleet ranks.  The source for the Starfleet ranks is not adequate, because it cannot have described the cadet insignia, because they did not exist in the real world in 1988.  Furthermore, no sources are presented for the Romulans, Cardassians and Bajorans.  I think the Bajoran militia ranks in particular were never as firmly established as this, and seem to be speculation based on existing traditional british/us army ranks.  Morwen - Talk 13:26, 20 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.