Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Starfleet officers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, and also rd to List of Starfleet officers by rank. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 05:42Z

List of Starfleet officers[edit]

1) Page will have a hard time being exhaustive 2) can't imagine any user ever searching for a general list of characters; more likely to look for individual characters, and infobox on major characters' pages provides easy nav between them 3) List role of this page better served by category page/cat inclusion -- and those already exist. True, doesn't include rank insignia or career highlights but, again, that info's on character pages. Generally, don't see utility of amalgamating all this info. EEMeltonIV 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, original research & does not qualify under WP:V --Cat out 08:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have an excellent List of Star Trek characters, which gives exactly what you need - a photo, name, and position. Not only is this list an unnecessary duplicate, the use of rank insignia all over the shop instead of character photos make it harder to navigate - specific career summaries belong in individual character articles. And there's no reason to start breaking up the comprehensive list I mentioned into lists like "Starfleet officers", "Federation citizens", "Cardassian officers", etc. Quack 688 09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quack 688. If consensus to split List of Star Trek characters emerges, then go for it. -/- Warren 10:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially Quack. Once again this is duplicate information. Like mentioned above if a split was decided on then yes, it could stay but this seems like a fork as mentioned by Quack. Note that this is one of the few examples where lists are a good idea and I don't see the original research. MartinDK 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and add that the fair-use rationale for the insignia may be invalid in a list of this kind. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but they are not fair use. --Cat out 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all the comments above. No point in having duplicate information. Jayden54 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for redundancy with other lists. Ford MF 11:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cruft. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.