This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, 25k, 2d no evidence of sockpuppetry. I didn't do a detailed edit-count check on every vote as there are enough well established users to carry the consensus anyway. -Splash 02:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article caused quite a stir when it was listed as a FAC and a number of people objected to its validity as candidate for Featured Article. The third nomination has now been closed and seems to be heading for a PR. The article is extensive, referenced and reasonably well-written, but it's fancruft pure and simple. It's a fan project about a very non-notable and uninteresting aspect of a very notable and interesting phenomenon. Star Trek is encyclopedic, but this does not go for all aspects of it. This article belongs at a fansite like Wikicities, not on Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 16:15 (UTC)

(See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Starfleet_ranks_and_insignia for the motivation behind this VfD. Guettarda 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC))

• KEEP: This article is about the evolution of the ranks and insignias as seen in the Star Trek productions from the 1960s to the present. While Star Trek itself is fictional, the insignia worn by the actors is not and has evolved over the past forty years in several television series and over ten motion pictures. This article is well written, referenced, and is not original research. To delete this would mean that all other fiction articles, such as articles about the Death Star, the Millenium Falcon, and Phantasy Star (to name a few) would be up for deletion as well. -Husnock 5 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
  • There is no Starfleet, and hence no Starfleet ranks. That means they're fictional. Though I don't know who would be deranged enough to interpret this vote as a precedent to remove all other article about fiction, I'd be very interested in getting some names. Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
    • The insignia worn by the actors is real enough. Paramount costume department is paid well enough to make them.On a side note (and I ask this becuase I really don't know not to be smart!) are VFDs supposed to have comments to the votes? Once someone votes Keep or Delete is that it or do people then make comments on the vote to get the person to change their mind? An admin should probably answer that. -Husnock 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
      • I don't think reanactment really changes the status of anything that's fictional... As far as the vote goes, it's like most others as far as I know. If you want to change your vote, feel free to do it. And comments are as far as I know perfeclty acceptable, but not necessary. /Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
        • Question answered! Other VFDs appear to have a lot of cross discussion and it is in fact encouraged. -Husnock 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
• Keep, it'll give these people something to do on Saturday nights. No, seriously, as much as this article scares me... and as many totally obscure and non-encyclopedic things that I'm sure the Trekkies could throw at us... the organization of Starfleet does not seem to be one of them. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 16:41 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - well written, well sourced article about factual material. Someone could write a dissertation on this. Sure, it's fancruft, but it's an encyclopaedia article about fancruft, not just a synopsis of an episode of a TV series or an article about a single character in a book or movie (see for example Tom Riddle). Guettarda 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
• Keep - it makes its fiction explicit, explains when things come from TV and when they're fan conjecture, is well sourced and referenced. To me, a model of what an article on a fictional topic should be. Now if only we had the same depth of coverage of Shakespeare. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
• Keep I would vote for the deletion of an article like this for most fannish pursuits, but Star Trek has had a very real, very tangible impact (often negative, in terms of stifling other efforts) on the business and culture of science fiction in film and television over the span of 30 years. By that benchmark, Star Trek minutae are just as much cultural footnotes as any other 1960s-era details. I wouldn't cry if someone merged it into some larger topic and redirected, but I don't think it's necessary. -Harmil 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
• Keep I wouldn't have writtne this article, nor am i likely to contribute to it nor to consult it often, although I am fond of startrek. But I see no more problem with this than with any detail about a fictional universe, and less than many. However this article does demonstrate why, IMO most articles about details of fictional univese (such as characters, places, and the like) would benefit from a consistant notation linking them to their primary subjects and in effect taking them out of the main articel namespace. Something like Star Trek -- Rank insignia or Middle Earth -- Cats of Queen Berutheil might be a good standard. If subpages were not so strongly objected to, this might be a goos sue for them. This idea has been briefly discussed over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional Series/General but no decision has been made. DES 5 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
• Right, we delete this and we keep every Pokemon and one-room school article on Wikipedia. I'm going to assume good faith here, but I don't think this VfD is a terribly good idea. Keep. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)
• Keep (SEWilco 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC))
• Delete Fancruft, fictional, non-encyclopedic. I don't care how fascinating Star Trek is, none of it is REAL. Do we want 20,000 articles on every character and place name in LOTR? I love both of these made-up worlds, but I want my encyclopedia to stay rooted in this one. All those voting "keep" above should re-read their comments and admit that these type of articles belong on fan sites, not here. -(Unsigned vote by User:DavidH 5Jul05)
  • You're arguing for the support of WP:FICT. This is one article on all the ranks and insignia. ONE! Comparing this to 20,000 articles on characters is so exhaggerated that it's ridiculous. Cburnett July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
  • I am underway in adding real world info, i.e. the people that actually created the ranks and the franchise that made the insignia for both the television and movies. When that is added, there will certianly be real world applications. My thanks to Xiong for bringing that issue to light. He's not so bad! Did i really just say that!?! -Husnock 5 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
• Keep. Star Trek is one of the most well-known franchises in science. I can't think of a single other work of fiction that has seen 10 movies, 5 television series (700+ epsodes in 28 seasons), and I have-no-clue how many novels. Actually, I'm curious if there is anything close to Star Trek... The Simpsons only has 17 seasons but no movies. Fancruft strikes at the heart of "what is notable?" and my answer has essentially been: whatever someone wants to write about; the more people that would read or write it the more notable it is. Notability is not in the eye of any one person, but only one's assessment of notability. The article in question has OVER 600 EDITS IN 5 MONTHS and I can't think of much more of a slap in the face to the uncountable hours people have spent on this than to delete it. So to explicitly state something like this is non-notable and uninteresting to 45 editors (mind you that's only writers...readers is uncountable) is arrogant beyond measure that it's insulting. (And for the record, I've only made 8 edits to this article.) Cburnett July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm not of the opinion that a certain number of edits or editors is a criteria for inclusion (and for a very good reason). So how about staying away from the pure personal stuff, hm? /Peter ^Isotalo 18:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice straw man. Nevermind that I laid out my definition of notability but attack numbers used to apply my definition to this article: the point is that 45 editors find it notable and, so far, there are only two people here that don't. Clearly, it is not my definition of notability that needs readjustment. Cburnett 05:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as WP:CIVIL goes, saying that your VFD is insulting is not being uncivil. Maybe you need to take a look around and see where the vote lies: aside from your vote, there's only one other delete vote. I still find your VFD insulting and your attitude about me being incivil, also, as arrogant. If you care to continue this then take it to my talk page. Cburnett 05:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep JYOuyang 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
• Keep I have been working with Husnock and Coolcat to make this article to par with standards that fits Featured articles. Though this did fail the FAC, I believe this article is piece of art and gives an introduction on how Starfleet is structured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
• Keep, well-sourced article about important part of Star Trek universe. Personally, I could care less about Star Trek, but this is not half as non-notable and crufty as some of the stuff Trekkies are writing and therefore not a valid deletion candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
• Keep. Not fanfic, pure and simple. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:36 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A good, comprehensive source for very specific information. Encyclopedic. - FabioB 5 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and a Live Long and Prosper! Notable facet of cultural institution, and, as per above, I need something to do on Saturday nights! :) Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
• Keep This is a legitimate article that has been the subject of a lot of hard work from a lot of people. This is a major part of something that is a major landmark of popular culture, it's certainly as notable and encyclopedic as many minor articles that have been kept. --Wingsandsword 6 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Very, very good article. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
• Strongest Keep --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)
• Strong & Speedy Keep This is part of popular culture and therfore encyclopedic. Star Trek is a great franchise and I have made contributions--Ted-m 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, and recommend the nominator have a look at WP:POINT. CDThieme 6 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. According to Jimbo, it's primarily about verifiability and npov, baring in mind what Wikipedia is not. If there was somewhere to reasonably merge this content to, then that might be an option, but there isn't. It's a long article with lots of verifiable content. In the old days, this subject might have been a subpage of Starfleet, but we don't do subpages any more, so the content is deserving of its own article. Also, for those who like to throw the word cruft around, please try to remember that if it wasn't for all us crufters inhabiting this encyclopedia, Wikipedia wouldn't be the huge phenomena it is today. func(talk) 6 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already stated by others above. -JCarriker July 6, 2005 21:44 (UTC)
• Comment. Not directly related but well worth a read is Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia#The Person formerly known as; Xiong's screed on why this should really not be a featured article, ever (except when applying an almost vindictive sort of pragmatism). This article is one of the finest examples of fancruft around, and I say this without passing judgement either way—it's a good example to compare against.

JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

While Xiong and I head hit head on in the early stage sof the FA, his later comments were actually quite enlightening and he made some outstanding points. I dont plan to pursue FA status anymore as a result. -Husnock 6 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject of this article was created by real people for real uses and it has many real effects on real world people and events. Whether or not the insignia featured in Star Trek physically exist, the "ranks" represented by them do: Popular fictional characters hold them, and they matter. -- Rmrfstar 6 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because an article causes debate on FAC doesn't mean it should be VFD'd. Having been away for a week I haven't had time to check out the who situation, but first impression is that this is an abuse of VFD. 23skidoo 8 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  • Without upseting the original nominator of the VFD, and keeping within the guidlines of Wikipedia:Civility, I agree completely with Skidoo. In my private opinion, there were some strong personal reasons behind this VFD as the individual in question has some views about this article and the people who wrote it. To the credit of the nominator, however, the user has never actually disrupted the content of the article. Also, as there was tremendous "Keep" support in response to this VFD, the issue will probably not come up again (hopefully) as to whether or not this article as a right to be on Wikipeida. -Husnock 9 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
• Keep, reason's stated. This really the cream of the fancruft crop.-LtNOWIS 9 July 2005 05:59 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.