Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia

message: All, while I respect the VfD process, I really think the arguments on this page are not valid.  Sources are presented, valid material is in the article, yet people still want to delete it.  I've asked admins to look at this page and possible stop this VfD .  I am not saying the nomination was bad faith, not at all, just the comments on this page appear very biased and are dismissing the hard work that has gone into the article.  The article needs a cleanup and expansion to be sure, but the manner in which the cited sources are being brushed aside, and the fact that at least two people have said to delete it simply because it "doesnt belong on Wikipedia", this article doesnt stand a chance and will probably be deleted for very unfair reasons. -Husnock 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This hard work is largely original research, and thus doesn't belong here.  Try the star trek wiki- they have different standards I believe.  Friday (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are actually harder to please.  Nothing non-canon will go there. -Husnock 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, lovely.  That means it qualifies for speedy under the transwiki criterion (which isn't contingent on their accepting it).  Seriously, if they don't want it, why should we keep it?  Chris cheese whine 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Memory Alpha has rules that nothing outside a Paramount Pictures production can be put onto that site as offical.  They do not accept additional info from books, tech manuals, etc.  This site does as they are sourcable literature works.  I have heard of a non-canon Star Trek site, but don't know that much about it.  I probably would be pretty happy there. -Husnock 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're looking for Memory Beta. -- nae'blis 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect the process but not this way

message: I cant say I'm sad that the article was saved, but I dont want to cause massive heartburn with people who expressed thier true feelings.  I invite a "re-looking" at this if anyone thinks the article save was unfair.  I'm prepared to accept the concensus. -Husnock 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well gosh

message: I'm not certain what was motivating the individual requesting delete, but citing the No Original Research policy bears nothing in relation to this article.  The people demanding deletion of this article are undoing a considerable amount of user work.   Furthermore, AfD is not a vote and beyond the dubious WP:NOR argument, there was no further rationale for deletion.  Bastiq▼e demandez 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with that but didnt want to cause tremendous problems with other users and invite further disputes over this article.  I tried to make my case and it looks like I lost.  if this does go south and it gets deleted, I have an idea asa to how to rewrite it as completely sourceable. -Husnock 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There would appear to have been a fundamental failure to understand what "original research" should be taken to mean on Wikipedia. The idea that we should not be able to create articles on subjects that other people have performed original research on would wipe out most of our properly-sourced articles. We are expected to base our articles on reliable sources, published in scholarly journals or elsewhere: oftentimes such publication is not usually possible for non-original research, as a perusal of our article on the subject would instantly make clear. The fact that people have devoted so much time to researching this kind of information is inherently interesting; the fact that the programme-makers themselves have then adopted the results of such research is well-nigh incredible. If half the effort expended on smithereening this article were devoted to researching new articles, we would be so much the richer. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Precisely how is the OR argument "dubious"?  Looks pretty clear-cut to me.  This analysis doesn't exist in a published form elsewhere.  To verify the information, another user would have to repeat the research that has gone into making the article.  Hence, it's original.  End of story, fanfare plays, credits roll.  That it is a "considerable amount of work" does not change this fact.  Between V, NPOV and OR, there are no exceptions.   Chris cheese whine 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorse closure 

message: I request, for procedural reasons if no other, that this AFD remain open the prescribed period. RJFJR 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closure was a bonehead move, and repeatedly re-closing it in the face of such strong objection was even more boneheaded.  Friday (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SNOW is a good reason for closing an AfD early - but closing within a day seems a bit extreme when a few editors oppose.  Rklawton 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there had been something resembling a consensus to keep, I'd look far less harshly on the early closure as a keep.  Friday (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose closure