Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:09, 30 November 2006

Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia

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. -Proto::type 11:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But it's just as bad. I've adjusted my opinion. MER-C 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cheerfully withdrawn, and apologies for the shorthand. Proto::type 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete, There maybe sources but this is an encyclopedia not a Star Trek fan site. Debaser23 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Writen sources are not original research. --Cat out 11:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- I don't think this qualifies to be "speedy kept", see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Demiurge 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:INN. Don't let that stop you from AfDing it anyway. Maybe we need a new essay, Wikipedia:Don't take it personally. Chris cheese whine 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The title says it all "conjectural" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 *::::::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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#A_misguided_notion:_.22Kicking_them_while_they_are_down.22|No kicking people when they're down].   No matter, I have plans to rebuild this from the ashes into a proper article. -[[User:Husnock|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 [[wikt:synthesis|synthesis]] of references to achieve your own [[wikt:conjecture|conjecture]] is '''[[WP:OR|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' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husnock&diff=next&oldid=91131746], and questioned every delete voter's good faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=91139620&oldid=91139083], but we'll let those slide. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 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.  You are going to win this, anyway, the article will be deleted.  I hope you're happy.  Congratulations. -[[User:Husnock|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 [[WP:OR|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. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(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 [[WP:OR|novel synthesis]] which is banned by policy ''and explicitly stated as being a key reason for that policy''.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:17, 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. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''[[User:Osgoodelawyer|<font color="blue">OzLawyer</font>]]'''</sup>&nbsp;/&nbsp;<sub>''<font color="black">[[User Talk:Osgoodelawyer|talk]]</font>''</sub>&nbsp;<sup>┐</sup> 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. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 13:29, 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. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 *::[[WP:INN]].  Don't let that stop you from AfDing it anyway.  Maybe we need a new essay, [[Wikipedia:Don't take it personally]].  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new whine]</small> 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' — The title says it all "conjectural" <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</font></small> 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)