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 delete and redirect. I see only two people with reasonable arguments for keeping; the arguments of original research, excess trivia and WP:USEFUL being a poor reason for keeping are compelling. Neil ╦ 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral (Star Trek)

[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Most of these articles are lists of characters who have held the respective ranks. While the characters have notability, the titles themselves do not. (I am not nominating Captain (Star Trek) for deletion, since the iconic nature of the series' leads, along with, for example, the real-world book about leadership modeled in Star Trek, may embue this particular rank with real-world significance. I dunno; it might be worth a separate AfD.) It makes little real-world difference when Geordi La Forge goes from lieutenant to lieutenant commander, or when Spock goes from lieutenant commander to commander. Additionally, most of the real-world information contained in these articles is a discussion of rank inconsistencies, e.g. lieutenant commander and whether/when O'Brien is enlisted -- much of it delves into original research. Although I realize that The Star Trek Encyclopedia is out-of-date and by no means exhaustive, I'm pretty certain that none of these ranks have even cursory entries in that text; similarly, characters who hold these ranks have entries in the startrek.com library, but not the ranks themselves (I searched for "lieutenant" and "lieutenant commander" and concluded that it's true of the others, too). I've spent a lot of time working on these articles, but I think I have a better understanding now of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and original research, and these ranks individually don't seem to have the real-world significance to warrant separate articles. I'd suggest they be deleted and, if appropriate, redirected to Starfleet ranks and insignia, which devotes more time and attention to their real-world development (at least for the early series/movies; more eyes there would be appreciated)) -- considering, though, that at least one of these articles came under semi-protection (and I was one of the involved parties), I can see how such a move by myself might be antagonistic, so I'm bringing it up for discussion and consensus-reaching here. --EEMeltonIV 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the suggest action is not deletion, but rather a redirect, I would suggest a discussion in a different place. Perhaps at WP:Star Trek? FrozenPurpleCube 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources providing real world context. I don't like the idea of leaving a redirect because these aren't really reasonable search terms. Jay32183 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete all but the first. It might have potential depending on how it's handled. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Titanium Dragon 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one monkey dance. —SlamDiego_←T 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki all to the star trek wiki. Corpx 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid option if you're talking about Memory Alpha, as they have an incompatible license. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didnt think of that. This one is GDFL Corpx 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reduce and merge all to a Rank in Star Trek article / list article. 70.51.8.90 05:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This isn't a median for merge discussions. See ((merge)) -- Cat ^chi? 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I am fundamentally suggesting these be deleted, not merged -- I don't see anything in these articles that should be cut-and-pasted into the larger ranks article. I can appreciate Jay32183's point that these may not be likely search terms; I was thinking more along aesthetic lines of the various links to these ranks/lists, but some time with AWB to delete those would do just as well. --EEMeltonIV 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments (should this fail to get tossed as a merge). I think all listed articles are useful. Lists of multiple characters that appeared with a certain rank insignia and being called is evidence of that rank. Most of these pages are breakaways from Starfleet ranks and insignia which was also been nominated for deletion several times (which have failed). Aside from the iconic Captain rank other ranks also had significance. For example the commander rank is among the most well known iconic rank out there. The individual flag officer ranks for example can be merged to one article.
  Star Trek is a part of culture and that is its real life significance. Hamlet is merely a cultural phenomenon as is Star Trek. Both are significant in their own way. Star Trek ranks are more like Yorick (Hamlet) (mere skull in the play, who doesn't know the skull in hamlet?), a symbol.
  -- Cat ^chi? 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  - WP:USEFUL is not a policy for inclusion. It would be useful for Wikipedia to tell how to change spark plugs or the best way to gut a fish, but I don't think we'll find those how-tos. "Lists of multiple characters that appeared with a certain rank insignia" sounds like the deleted List of Starfleet officers by rank -- that article and these rank lists are "useful" in that they possess certain information, but they aren't notable. "Evidence" of these ranks, meanwhile, is conveyed in the current Starfleet ranks and insignia, not to mention the various notable characters who have held the rank. The rank of Starfleet commander is not notable, but Commanders Spock and Benjamin Sisko are -- I'd challenge you to find a reliable source that offers commentary or discussion on the rank that isn't attached to a particular character, or that focuses primarily on the title rather than characters who carry it.
    As for this being breakaway material from the base article -- that doesn't particularly matter to me. You'll probably remember that Starfleet ranks and insignia went through a massive rewrite since the individual ranks were broken off to get rid of OR and its in-universe focus. I would oppose integrating much, if any, of the individual rank articles (back) into the ranks and insignia bit for much the same reasons I've nominated them for deletion: they are in-universe lists of trivia.
    I agree that Star Trek is "a cultural phenomenon" and is "significant." The ranks characters lug around, however, are not themselves significant. On my talk page, you suggested that my goal is to get "all star trek slowly deleted". To the contrary, my goal is to reduce the amount of non-notable material that lists plot summary and trivia so that what *does* remain has solid footing in WP:N. The Yorick : Hamlet :: Lieutenant Commander : Star Trek analogy is flawed. A cornerstone -- in fact, one of the things that lends Star Trek its significance -- of the franchise is how it's characters/people that matter most, not the number of pips on their collar. As an unintended result, that's why these ranks haven't added up to a ton of in-universe, and negligible out-of-universe, notability. --EEMeltonIV 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't WP:USEFUL, it is more of a citation useful. List of characters by rank is fine as you and I discussed earlier on. A good number of these articles are used for that. It is better to have such articles rather than unintelligible LONG lists at the bottom of pages for citation. In addition list of characters by rank meets WP:L and WP:N.
      Your definition of OR and the one in WP:OR is significantly different. You do not consider the show itself to be a credible source for information. You removed lots of information like that such as the parallel universe ranks. Or citations to the enterprise ranks. You have over 5000 edits on that article. You have removed lots of sourced material from the article 'slowly'. Not my idea of rewrite.
      A good number of the characters are notable simply because of the number of pips they wear, like the captain rank or the commander rank as well as others.
      You yourself said/implied Captain rank had an "iconic nature". "The Yorick : Hamlet :: Captain : Star Trek" works just as The Yorick : Hamlet :: Lieutenant Commander : Star Trek.
      If you don't mind I am bailing out of this discussion because I find any deletion discussion with you to be pointless.
      -- Cat ^chi? 11:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      - The show itself is a fine source of information; however, making generalizations about the entire fictional universe based on what is only seen and described for the principle characters is OR. It's fair to say that in some parallel universe, Riker wears a particular insignia; it is OR to state that in the parallel universe, everyone with Riker's rank wears that insignia. Please see WP:WAF. And please note that I used the phrase "iconic nature" to describe the characters; whether Kirk, Picard, etc. "transfer" notability to their rank, I'm not as sure of; it may be worth a later AfD. As for edit counts, whatever that's worth: on the ranks & insignia article, I have 165, which is slightly less than half of Husnock's, a little more than a third of yours, and a lot less than "5000". --EEMeltonIV 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All "commanders" that appeared on the parallel universe wore that insignia. Similar case with the Enterprise ranks. If everyone with a specific insignia wears a specific insignia in a show the only logical conclusion is that the insignia are indeed representing the ranks in question. This is not OR. OR would be me inventing ranks/insignia. We know the pips they wear are ranks and this isn't rocket science. -- Cat ^chi? 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        Various things quite different from your inventing ranks would be OR. A conversation in an elevator between you and one of the writers would be OR. OR can have very great objective merit, but it isn't permitted in Wikipedia. Maybe that gets your goat; sometime it gets mine; but that's the way that it is. —SlamDiego_←T 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We have some participants advocating actual deletion, and “merge” is a legitimate resolution of a nomination for deletion. Let's let this play-out, and accept any consensus that develops from it. —SlamDiego_←T 11:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real-world impact, little in the way of actual reliable sources that I can see, mostly treated in-universe style, and implausible redirects as titles/search terms. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It does not seem to be in-universe to me and I learned from this article (fleet admiral. Martin-C 06:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect — I fail to see any significance or usefulness in these. When a tv show refers to the rank of a character and that rank is taken right from a real-world use, people know what it means, A Captain is a Captain; an Ensign is an Ensign. It might be different if the ranks were made-up words, but that sort of thing could be covered in a List of ranks in Star Trek. --Jack Merridew 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom; excessive trivia and much OR. Sandstein 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into original article: The texts of most of these articles were taken out of the main Starfleet ranks article about three years ago from what I can see so it shouldnt be a major deal to call it up in the edit history. Would also like to comment that EEMeltonIV's motiviations here are a little bit hazy; he has been involved in a major edit war on Fleet Captain (Star Trek) and has had serious personality clashes with this White Cat person who was the original inventor of most of this articles. I have to wonder why the sudden mass deletion campaign. -OberRanks 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Peregrine Fisher 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote. Please include some kind of reasoning. Jay32183 20:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into original article: Starfleet ranks and insignia are culturally significant in and of themselves because they do parallel military ranks (particularly U.S. Navy), and because their use reveals much about the philosophy of the show, particularly through the eyes and pens of its creators, producers, and writers. In my opinion, this is true of any show with Star Trek's cultural significance that depicts rank, status, and/or a possible future for both military and space exploration. Additionally, it is my understanding that to be deleted as per Wikipedia:No original research, the entire article must consist solely of original research; otherwise, the piece goes to cleanup. The "Star Trek: Enterprise" subtopic, which contains precisely two unsourced statements, could be interpreted--very loosely--to contain original research, but for the fact that no point of view is espoused. It is certainly hard for a reasonable person to claim that a piece that simply lists and contextualizes specific fictional enlisted ranks espouses any particular point of view. At the same time, there is a clear and important subtext here, framed by Gene Roddenberry's statement that in his view all Starfleet crew members were astronauts, and therefore had to be officers, that some later writers and producers disagreed with him. Given Star Trek's 40-year history, that is hardly original fact. The point of all this is that the rank or status of fictional characters is often vital to the story, particularly when that story is presented in the context of a military, cultural, or space exploration organization--and that when the story itself bears significant cultural significance--as does any story that has run nearly a fifth of the history of its nation of origin--said rank or status is often key to understanding not just the characters' place in the story, but in the minds of its creators--and furthermore, the place of rank and status in the minds of those creators. P.F. Bruns 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If Starfleet ranks and insignia ever goes up for AfD, I may provide a link back here; I agree with much of what you wrote. Out of curiosity, what particular content on these individual articles do you think is worth holding onto (besides the observation that Roddenberry suggested that all TOS-era folks were officer-grade astronauts, which I'm surprised isn't in the catch-all article and that I'll drop in regardless of how the AfD works out)? --EEMeltonIV 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sort of trivia belongs at Memory Alpha or the Star Trek Wikia site, not here. Burntsauce 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SlamDiego. J-stan ^Talk 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep per P.F. Bruns --Xiahou 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - P.F. Bruns input suggests a (re)merge, not a keep. If you think there's a reason to keep them separate, please articulate it. --EEMeltonIV 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - no, keep or merge as long as the information is still there. --Xiahou 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lot of them to an article on Star Trek ranks. WP:FICT and all that. >Radiant< 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete: per nom. I agree with several editors above that someone who cares that much about which fictional characters held which fictional ranks so as to want a comparison chart will already have Memory Alpha bookmarked. Ravenswing 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too big a bundle to handle. Agree 100% with omitting Captain from the list, as the majority of plotlines involve the various captains. The x-Admirals should go, as they tend to be only scene setting, but the Ensign, Lieutenant commander and a few of the other ranks are held by repeating and significant characters. Ace of Risk 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and those repeating/significant characters should be covered -- but do the ranks themselves, divorced from particular characters, have notability? --EEMeltonIV 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rank-specific articles; Keep Starfleet enlisted ranks and insignia and Starfleet officer accession ranks. It's a merge issue whether the two overviews need to be separate from Starfleet ranks and insignia. Kayaker 21:49, 1 August 2007 (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.