Deletion of Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom, violates .  Conjectural, non-canon stuff that the article states itself often comes from misconceptions, backhanded explanations or outright costume errors?  This is chockful of original research, and probably would be a far better fit over at Memory Alpha or some other Trek Wiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: This article signs its own death warrant in my opinion with the comment, "Alternate ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia that ''have never appeared in canon Star Trek productions or materials'', but ''have been described in ''non-canonical literature or ''fan sources''. The main sources of such Star Trek rank insignia are Star Trek novels, technical manuals, fan magazines, and ''internet websites not directly connected with the publication of the show''." It seems an admission to lack of  and and inherent violation of . At most these insignia have been described in a book- the pictures are mostly pure conjecture and OR. By way of example. The 'ensign first class' insig is apparently descibed in the book "Doctor's Orders". I have included its picture right. How much of the book was taken up with the description of the insignia for so accurate a rendering to be produced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR)

Comment: How retarded.  is to prevent users from using Wikipedia as a platform for their own original research. Not to prevent original research or material by non-Wikipedians being the subject of articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: First, the most common objection I've seen so far is "original research". There's two quotes from  that I think are relevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)