Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:56, 25 July 2007 editFrozenPurpleCube (talk | contribs)9,603 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 22:52, 25 July 2007 edit undoJay32183 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,801 edits []: deleteNext edit →
Line 20: Line 20:
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 ] 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 ] goes from lieutenant to lieutenant commander, or when ] 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 Although I realize that ''The Star Trek Encyclopedia'' is out-of-date and by no means exhaustive, I'm pretty certain that none of these ranks have even cursory entries in that text; similarly, characters who hold these ranks have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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages'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 '''redirect'''ed to ], 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. --] 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 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 ] 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 ] goes from lieutenant to lieutenant commander, or when ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages'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 '''redirect'''ed to ], 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. --] 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Given that the suggest action is not deletion, but rather a redirect, I would suggest a discussion in a different place. Perhaps at ]? ] 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Comment''' Given that the suggest action is not deletion, but rather a redirect, I would suggest a discussion in a different place. Perhaps at ]? ] 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''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. ] 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:52, 25 July 2007

Admiral (Star Trek)

Admiral (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Starfleet enlisted ranks and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Starfleet officer accession ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ensign (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lieutenant junior grade (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lieutenant (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lieutenant commander (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Commander (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fleet captain (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Commodore (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rear admiral (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vice admiral (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fleet admiral (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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)

Categories: