Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Republic


 * 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The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Galactic Republic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A bit different beast this time. The current article is pure fancruft, but I found sources that might just might, help. But I think they are borderline, so a trial by fire seems in order (and if the consensus is to keep, I'll volunteer to do a rewrite). Right now this is a pure plot summary/fictional history (of Star Wars). There is no reception/analysis. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, blah, blah. Now, there is a tiny possibility this concept is notable (although as stated, the sources I see are pure plot summaries and nothing deeper), but in the current form this is 100% WP:FANCRUFT (a fictional entity that forms a background to a popular franchise, but does not appear to have received much attention outside frequent mentions in the plot).

Nonetheless, in my BEFORE I did find some sources for consideration that taken together give some hope: 1) "this academic article compares the Republic to the Weimar Germany, it goes beyond, plot, barely, but it is of dubious reliability. It was published in a new academic journal that appeared just last year, and this makes it as low-quality as things get in academia without being self-published or published in predatory outlets (but technically it is still reliable). You know this is a low quality outlet when it has no DOI... Anyway, this is the most in-depth treatment, but as noted, the outlet is barely reliable (but I guess barely still means reliable...). 2) This more reliable article does have a promising chapter titled 'The Fall and Redemption of Systems: The Story of the Galactic Republic' but having read it is very disappointing - the Republic is mentioned three times and the analysis is limited to few sentences: "In addition to telling a story about the fall and redemption of a person, the Star Wars saga tells a story about the fall and redemption of a system (the Galactic Republic)... The Star Wars literature describes the Galactic Republic as an organization where Senators sought to live out their most grandiose of political ambitions and to amass extreme wealth, power, and other excesses...". And that's it, I really struggle to find anything else quotable from this article, it mostly focuses on the story of Anakin and just draws a few parallels to the Republic here and there. 3) Another academic article with a promising title "Remembering and restoring the republic: Star Wars and Rome" draws several parallels but doesn't contain much else. So what do you think? The current article is a terrible piece of fancruft, but we could add a reception section saying that 'it has been compared to Ancient Rome and the Weimar Republic' and 'the story of GR rise, fall and redemption is similar to the story of Anakin Skywalker'. Would this be enough? And if so, how much of the mostly unreferenced fancruft plot summary should be pruned? Let's discuss. Can this be rescued? Another option would be to redirect it somewhere, where we could add the referenced few sentences (but redirect where? New Republic (Star Wars) is even worse...).

PS. Actually, since I already did most of the work here, I've added the reception section to this article, but I still think it is on the wrong side of borderline. Please improve further if you can, I'd be happy if this can be saved, I just don't think what I did is enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree the article needs a lot of work, and think historical references are a good place to start. I also suggest merging the New Republic article into Galactic Republic, while deleting everything unimportant. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nominator is not actually making a proper case for the article's deletion on the grounds that it unequivocally fails the GNG threshold, which is the only relevant guideline for a subject of this nature in an "Article of Deletion" discussion, and that consequently the article in its entirety needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Even he does not appear to have made up his mind on whether the subject topic meets or fails GNG since he has volunteered to rewrite the article's prose on the condition that a "keep" consensus is reached, which indicates that the article's content issues are not objectively insurmountable and can be fixed by bold edits or if it's tagged appropriately. If a topic is in fact not eminently notable, no amount of rewrites of the article's pose would remedy the underlying problem. The nominator's assertion that the Notability (fiction) essay is a "requirement" is incorrect, as it represents the opinions of the original author or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at best.


 * It appears the nominator has an editing pattern of using the AfD process as a cleanup exercise to remove poor quality content, which does not necessarily reflect Wikipedia policy on deletion justified or otherwise. Per WP:ATD, the nominator should either withdraw the nomination and either tag the page to request for cleanup from other editors on the relevant Wikiproject, discuss a merge proposal on the talk page with other editors who are interested in collaborating to fix the article's issues, or boldly rewrite the entirety of the prose himself since he implied that he already has an idea on how it should be written. In the alternative, if he is unwilling and unable to do so, the closing editor should close this discussion as a Speedy Keep on a procedural rationale, as I believe this is a misuse of the Articles for Deletion procedure and it is not the appropriate avenue to discuss the improvement of an article's content quality. Haleth (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, as well explained by Haleth above. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very clearly notable. Central element of a very significant franchise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at the most, Merge the "Republic" topics together. A lot of the nom is just criticising the current revision of the article, which isn't relevant per WP:ARTN. The rest of this is just saying . From the sound of it, there are several other places this should have gone before it made its way here. WP:RSN and Talk:Galactic Republic are the two biggest examples. Deletion isn't a default solution and AfD isn't an all-in-one page. WP:HANDLE is a Wikipedia policy, and so is WP:ATD. The nomination overestimates the scope of AfD and doesn't do enough to consider alternatives.  Dark  knight  2149  19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. AfD is not the appropriate place to ask for help in developing an article. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. The nominator admits the article may be notable and even asks other users to look for sources. It's clear editing can improve the page as the nominator already did it; I think users should be given more time to find other sources without the threat of deletion. I have no issue with this being renominated at a later date if not improved, but I don't think it should be nominated now. Rhino131 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Deletion isn’t cleanup. Dronebogus (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I praise the nominator for starting the reception section. It would be good if others joined them in improving this rather than rant about AfD not being the place for improving articles. I believe it very much should be. But anyway, keep this (possibly merge with the New Republic?) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. I still think this is borderline, but clearly no-one else does, and since I went to the trouble of partially rescuing it, eh, I lost much motivation. Also for rescuing it further, given the unfriendly attitude towards either rescuing or deleting this, as displayed by some above. It sounds like some would refer AfD to be used for nothing (Deletion=bad, rescuing=bad). Sigh again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't that deletion is bad, it's just that this doesn't fit the scope of AfD. AfD isn't for general "I have a problem or concern with this article that needs to be addressed" posts. It's the last resort for when the nominator is sure that something fails a deletion criteria and there is no alternative to deletion. If you believe that an article needs to be rewritten, aren't fully sure about the coverage, or have a question about if it can be improved, there are dedicated areas for that sort of thing. For example, WP:RSN is the noticeboard for questions and disputes about the adequecy and reliability of sources.  Dark knight  2149  08:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Articles for Deletion is still not Articles for Discussion as it does not reflect Wikipedia policy and currently lacks a community-wide consensus for that to change. The nominator and their supporter(s) being passive aggressive about it and blaming it on supposed fandom as opposed to their own lack of understanding of the appropriate process to improve articles does not help matters. Haleth (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this article is in really rough shape. AFD isn't cleanup. It is a central part of a notable franchise. But articles like this are better saved by sources than !voting and I haven't found sources outside of plot summaries of Star Wars. I am glad this article is getting a chance to improve but I have mixed feelings that it's because of bare votes with no sources. Agree with people saying this has a better chance of fitting with Wikipedia in the long run if it's merged with Galactic Republic. Archrogue (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (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.