Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance


 * 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 keep. A rough consenus of the discussion does not show favor towards deletion, but rather merging or keeping. Please continue the merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Alliance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No assertion of real-world notability. Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources. Entirely in-universe plot summary. Spruced with puffy pieces of original research ("Both sides seemingly have...") and non-statements ("It is unknown if..."). --EEMIV (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This is fansite material; no notability outside of fan service and marketing. Unsourced and the other WP:... given. Jack Merridew 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * merge to a combination article on the locations, which should be the default for this sort of material.     DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to a list of something-or-others (governments, teams) of BSG thingies. Will have or has references. Major plot element. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep AGF'ing that the offline refs are real. I wouldn't oppose a merge, because there are a number of such human outposts in the 1970's BSG that are absent from the 2000's reimagining. As is, this appears to meet notability, but doesn't appear to be optimally presented for Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough sourced material here that deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: largely unreferenced, in-universe. Belongs on a fan-site. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is currently referenced with 5 citations from 2 different published works, so the point of "Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources" is now moot. The idea that "No assertion of real-world notability" is spurious -- there are thousands of pages on Wikipedia that relate to fictional characters and groups. I see no calls to ask how Ewoks have real world notability, but I'm sure that few would call for that page to be deleted or merged with "non-Humans of Star Wars". "Entirely in-universe plot summary." -- well, what of it? Most if not *all* pages on Wikipedia do. For example, the Time Lord page, or Ben-Hur, Fidelio, and Hamlet. Or should all of the plays, movies, books and music be taken to some "Arts & Literature fan site"? Simply put, the Eastern Alliance was a major plot device in the original BSG's later episodes, and were alluded to (the nuked Earth) in the reimaging. Remove it, and we may as well delete/merge the Imperial stormtrooper page too. Markvs88 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is in-universe material which is best suited for a fansite or Wikia / Wikicities or whatever its called now.  JBsupreme (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this out of universe material that is suitable for Wikipedia. Due to improvements, the article demonstrates real-world notability by means of citations to reliable third-party sources and is therefore unorigfinal research concerning out of universe information.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there a list of groups or governments in BSG anywhere out there? If so, I'd be happy to keep the cruft I just deleted axed and have this content merged instead, i.e. to withdraw this nomination. Not sure if that's kosher since there are other delete !votes. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is always appropriate for a nominator to say that he has concluded through dicussions and edits that there are other more acceptable options than a flat delete. The whole purpose of an AFD is to discuss the qualities of an article, pro and con, and acknowleding improvements that might happen during the course of an AfD. If a nominator's opinion changes, its always proper for him to share with the others involved in the discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of response but not much of an answer. Is there any such list of BSG groups or organizations to merge this to sans cruft? --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the number of "Keep" votes, I'd say that's a superfluous question. Markvs88 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements and allow further soucing per Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy, Cinefantastique, Volume 35, Issues 1-6, The encyclopedia of TV science fiction, Sf-Worlds, and others avaiilable online and in libraries.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and impove Look for more source material, it seems a valid topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.