Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic empire


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Galactic empire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not TVTropes, and this reads like a work of original research remarking on the similarities of galactic empires between works, but is not backed up by any reliable sources. There are a lot of weasel words like "most", "many", etc. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: The concept of a galactic empire is very important in science fiction. This article is a nice resume of the concept and shows examples of its uses as well. While it might "read" like original research, it clearly is not, as Notable examples section is only making a short resume of the different examples without pointing to a general conclusion. The problem of weasel words is easily adressed by simple edits. The reason this article has so few sources is that it was written in 2002, when wikipedia was very different. However, it shouldn't be too hard to find reliable sources on such a dominant aspect of science fiction. This video does a very good overview of the concept and its use in fiction, and so could be used as a source in this article. Emass100 (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can find sufficient sources then please do add them and improve the article. Otherwise, this is simply WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. Note that they must be reliable sources; Youtube is usually not considered a reliable source per WP:NOYT - YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. That is definitely a self published video and not from an "official" channel.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-established literary concept in the genre. As far as sources go, I'd start by looking at and perhaps also  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I hate articles that are written like this - a poorly sourced collection of things that have no inclusion criteria - but that's a content issue. The subject itself is notable, I found detailed coverage from a simple online search taking 5 seconds and I'm concerned that no WP:BEFORE search could have been done by the nominator. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, per arguments above. The article needs rewriting, but the subject is a notable concept. /Julle (talk)
 * Keep. Concur with all the above.  This should not even be on a discussion list for deletion.  It needs sources, not deletion, nor even talk about deletion.  Merely checking Google for "encyclopedia" entries about the topic turned up articles in Enc. Britannica, in Enc. of Science Fiction, and in Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (hardcopy).  A Google Scholar search turned up lots more hits, such as Newman & Sagan (noted above) and Galam's Sociophysics: A Physicist's Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena.  I haven't read these, so I can't cite them appropriately.  But the idea that there might not be any, so this article should be considered for deletion, is preposterous. Jmacwiki (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (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.