266:"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?
394:, 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.
262:
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)
365:
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
590:. 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. --
257:), 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)
643:
as it does not reflect
Knowledge (XXG) 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
261:
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
229:
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
611:
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
665:
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
364:
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 Knowledge (XXG). Even he does not appear to have made up
530:
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
565:- 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?) -
273:
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.
242:
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%
198:
317:
340:
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.
294:
666:
mixed feelings that it's because of bare votes with no sources. Agree with people saying this has a better chance of fitting with
Knowledge (XXG) in the long run if it's merged with
379:
159:
192:
247:(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).
230:
history (of Star Wars). There is no reception/analysis. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
91:
106:
231:
132:
127:
628:
495:
254:, it goes beyond, plot, barely, but it is of dubious reliability. It was published in a new academic journal that appeared just last year (
136:
119:
86:
79:
17:
455:
the "Republic" topics together. A lot of the nom is just criticising the current revision of the article, which isn't relevant per
366:
235:
640:
213:
180:
100:
96:
696:
40:
370:
174:
422:
679:
653:
634:
623:
602:
582:
557:
540:
522:
501:
490:
443:
426:
403:
350:
332:
309:
286:
267:
61:
170:
575:
250:
Nonetheless, in my BEFORE I did find some sources for consideration that taken together give some hope: 1) "
510:
414:
383:
361:
468:
463:. From the sound of it, there are several other places this should have gone before it made its way here.
123:
220:
692:
36:
607:
It isn't that deletion is bad, it's just that this doesn't fit the scope of AfD. AfD isn't for general
244:
251:
553:
439:
418:
346:
391:
675:
618:
518:
485:
206:
476:
239:
568:
536:
531:
being renominated at a later date if not improved, but I don't think it should be nominated now.
57:
483:. The nomination overestimates the scope of AfD and doesn't do enough to consider alternatives.
369:
essay is a "requirement" is incorrect, as it represents the opinions of the original author or
186:
667:
596:
326:
303:
280:
115:
75:
67:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
691:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
616:
is the noticeboard for questions and disputes about the adequecy and reliability of sources.
456:
258:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
649:
471:
are the two biggest examples. Deletion isn't a default solution and AfD isn't an all-in-one
399:
613:
480:
464:
387:
549:
435:
342:
671:
514:
255:
461:"I wasn't sure if the available coverage was adequate, so I nominated it for deletion"
532:
53:
592:
322:
299:
276:
392:
tag the page to request for cleanup from other editors on the relevant
Wikiproject
153:
645:
395:
513:. AfD is not the appropriate place to ask for help in developing an article. —
263:
434:. Very clearly notable. Central element of a very significant franchise. --
378:
It appears the nominator has an editing pattern of using the AfD process as
609:"I have a problem or concern with this article that needs to be addressed"
390:, the nominator should either withdraw the nomination and either
252:
this academic article compares the
Republic to the Weimar Germany
318:
list of
Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
687:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
295:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
149:
145:
141:
205:
219:
380:a cleanup exercise to remove poor quality content
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
699:). No further edits should be made to this page.
316:Note: This discussion has been included in the
293:Note: This discussion has been included in the
473:"I have a problem or concern with this article"
264:Another academic article with a promising title
8:
232:Knowledge (XXG):General notability guideline
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
612:areas for that sort of thing. For example,
315:
292:
360:: The nominator is not actually making a
479:is a Knowledge (XXG) policy, and so is
362:proper case for the article's deletion
593:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
417:, as well explained by Haleth above.
382:, which does not necessarily reflect
323:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
300:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
277:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
367:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)
236:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)
639:I agree. Articles for Deletion is
459:. The rest of this is just saying
384:Knowledge (XXG) policy on deletion
24:
641:still not Articles for Discussion
644:articles does not help matters.
92:Introduction to deletion process
1:
680:20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
654:20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
635:08:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
603:07:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
583:06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
558:14:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
541:16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
523:01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
502:19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
444:11:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
427:10:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
404:10:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
386:justified or otherwise. Per
351:09:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
333:08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
310:08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
287:08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
62:21:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
716:
259:This more reliable article
52:(nomination withdrawn) –
689:Please do not modify it.
548:Deletion isn’t cleanup.
268:New Republic (Star Wars)
32:Please do not modify it.
469:Talk:Galactic Republic
234:and the more detailed
80:Articles for deletion
270:is even worse...).
451:, or at the most,
668:Galactic Republic
581:
371:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
335:
312:
116:Galactic Republic
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
68:Galactic Republic
707:
631:
626:
621:
599:
580:
578:
573:
566:
498:
493:
488:
474:
462:
329:
306:
283:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
77:
34:
715:
714:
710:
709:
708:
706:
705:
704:
703:
697:deletion review
629:
624:
619:
601:
597:
576:
569:
567:
496:
491:
486:
472:
460:
331:
327:
308:
304:
285:
281:
166:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
713:
711:
702:
701:
683:
682:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
591:
585:
560:
543:
525:
504:
446:
429:
407:
406:
375:
374:
354:
353:
337:
336:
321:
313:
298:
275:
227:
226:
163:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
712:
700:
698:
694:
690:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
669:
664:
661:
655:
651:
647:
642:
638:
637:
636:
633:
632:
627:
622:
615:
610:
606:
605:
604:
600:
594:
589:
586:
584:
579:
574:
572:
571:GizzyCatBella
564:
561:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
542:
538:
534:
529:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
511:WP:NOTCLEANUP
508:
505:
503:
500:
499:
494:
489:
482:
478:
470:
466:
458:
454:
450:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:WP:NOTCLEANUP
412:
409:
408:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
372:
368:
363:
359:
356:
355:
352:
348:
344:
339:
338:
334:
330:
324:
319:
314:
311:
307:
301:
296:
291:
290:
289:
288:
284:
278:
271:
269:
265:
260:
256:
253:
248:
246:
241:
238:requirement.
237:
233:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
688:
686:
662:
617:
608:
587:
570:
562:
545:
527:
506:
484:
452:
448:
431:
410:
357:
272:
249:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
546:Speedy keep
411:Speedy Keep
245:WP:FANCRUFT
193:free images
50:speedy keep
598:reply here
550:Dronebogus
436:Necrothesp
343:UpdateNerd
328:reply here
305:reply here
282:reply here
693:talk page
672:Archrogue
515:Toughpigs
477:WP:HANDLE
240:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
695:or in a
588:Withdraw
533:Rhino131
373:at best.
160:View log
101:glossary
54:Muboshgu
39:or in a
663:Comment
457:WP:ARTN
358:Comment
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
646:Haleth
625:knight
614:WP:RSN
492:knight
481:WP:ATD
475:page.
465:WP:RSN
419:Andrew
396:Haleth
388:WP:ATD
171:Google
137:delete
453:Merge
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
676:talk
650:talk
630:2149
620:Dark
563:Keep
554:talk
537:talk
528:Keep
519:talk
509:per
507:Keep
497:2149
487:Dark
467:and
449:Keep
440:talk
432:Keep
423:talk
413:per
400:talk
347:talk
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
421:🐉(
221:TWL
158:– (
678:)
670:.
652:)
577:🍁
556:)
539:)
521:)
442:)
425:)
402:)
349:)
320:.
297:.
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
674:(
648:(
595:|
552:(
535:(
517:(
438:(
398:(
345:(
325:|
302:|
279:|
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.