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. With no prohibitions of the mentioned draft being moved into mainspace J04n(talk page) 17:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt of the Enlisted[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, recently created, has a number of irrefutable and irredeemable issues with it. 1) the title "Revolt of the Enlisted" is WP:NOR, as there is no mention of it what so ever in any of the given citations. It is an attempt to relate it to the actual Revolt of the Admirals, which was an actual event. 2) The article is filled with blatant POV throughout, with a strong bias against the rating change. This can be cleaned up, but it is still a problem. 3) This article does not appear to cover a notable event. It has not been described as an event, but rather just as a part of the histories of the Navy rates - which would be more appropriate to cover with a paragraph there, rather than with a stand alone article. In fact at List of United States Navy ratings#Temporary end of ratings there is a small section, not POV, that covers everything in this article. Garuda28 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that everything (including the title) is a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR; there's a bit of WP:NOTNEWS concern as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to be able to comment here further; if the article is renamed and improved the closer should discount my vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect(see below comments) well sourced material to List of United States Navy enlisted rates for slightly more context in the brief synopsis already there. The event was real and much of the narrative is correct, even if rather sensationalized, but the article as it stands is almost entirely synthesized and unlikely to become complaint with OR or NPOV. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI agree fully with you on merging the information, but given that the title name, Revolt of the Enlisted, is original research and not backed up or found at all online, do you support a delete and merge rather than a redirect? Garuda28 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not defamatory or otherwise unacceptable information so I prefer to keep the article history there as a resource for editors but I wouldn't be up in arms over a deletion. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The info is definitely useful. My only issue is that the title name is inaccurate and original research. Maybe rename the page “United States Navy rating controversy”, merge the history, then delete the page titled “Revolt of the Enlisted”? Sorry if that’s a lot, I’m just really not comfortable with the title or a redirect being titled Revolt of the Enlisted due to the false parallels with Revolt of the Admrials and the title being OR. Garuda28 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - While they're technically allowed, anything with "controversy" in the title causes me an involuntary eye-roll. Let me see what I can draft together; if it's deemed article worthy I don't see why we can't do as you've suggested. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I was thinkining if it more as just a redirect title to go to list of navy ratings, rather than as a stand-alone article, but if you want to go at it. Garuda28 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Per the above discussion I have created a provisionally titled and very rough draft that I think will demonstrate the subject's probable compatibility with policy after a delete and merge to a new title. A lot has to be done still but it's a start. Any interested party is welcome to make further changes to the article and feedback is appreciated. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Full support You did an amazing job! Took an incredibly biased article and turned it into something fitting of Wikipedia. Garuda28 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barring any objections I will be implementing my draft over the 24 hours. If the closer does not interpret a "Keep" could we get a relist after the changes? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- to clarify will the page Revolt of the Enlisted still exist as a redirect? My intent would be to not have it exist at all, with your page existing as a continuation of the topic.Garuda28 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest a Delete and Merge of all draft material into a new article, provisionally titled 2016 U.S. Navy ratings change and have amended my !vote to reflect. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with @LargelyRecyclable:'s draft.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:11, 28 December 2017 (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.