Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) at 06:27, 26 July 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:27, 26 July 2007 by とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Admiral (Star Trek)

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 Although I realize that The Star Trek Encyclopedia is out-of-date and by no means exhaustive, I'm pretty certain that none of these ranks have even cursory entries in that text; similarly, characters who hold these ranks have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 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)

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? Mister.Manticore 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. Jay32183 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
Delete. Titanium Dragon 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge into one monkey dance. —SlamDiego_←T 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki all to the star trek wiki. Corpx 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid option if you're talking about Memory Alpha, as they have an incompatible license. Mister.Manticore 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Didnt think of that. This one is GDFL Corpx 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

reduce and merge all to a Rank in Star Trek article / list article. 70.51.8.90 05:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep all, we do need content on wikipedia. I oppose a merge, they were originally merged and broken apart for being well over 200KB. I also want to point out the sourced content of each of the articles including Starfleet ranks and insignia were removed for being original research despite being shown on the show itself. Primary source was declared an inadequate source. -- Cat 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories: