Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Republic (Star Wars)

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 no consensus. This AfD has been running for more than a month, and it doesn't appear that a clear consensus is going to emerge.Deor (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]

New Republic (Star Wars)[edit]

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

No sources and written from an in-universe point of view. WP:UNDUE weight is placed on this fictitious Star Wars government. I suggest it be deleted or merged into Galactic Republic. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]

I agree that it needs sources and rewording, however the content is notable enough to keep. It could merge with Galactic Republic. Frmorrison (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Delete - In-universe fancruft. Wikia is thattaway-------> Jimmy Wales thanks you for your patronage and hopes you are pleased. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Keep The nomination claims that there are no sources but this claim is false. It goes on to suggest merger and that's not a deletion matter. The topic is notable as it is discussed in detail by other sources such as Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology. Andrew (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Weak keep. This topic is covered in Star Wars: The Essential Reader's Companion p. 247ff and also (I'm fairly certain) A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, Second Edition, The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, and The New Essential Chronology, though I don't know how in-depth the coverage in those sources is. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but have reopened as personally believe there's no notability so merits a discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Reluctant delete -- the texts mentioned above are licensed products that generally adopt an in-universe perspective; they don't offer the independence we want in reliable sources. More frustrating, there's insufficient material to offer a real-world treatment on the subject (although I realize this latter isn't a rationale for deletion). --EEMIV (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]

The independence we require is the sort that ensures accuracy rather than personal bias and that's what we get with such works, which present an authoritative and expert view of the material, not a personal and subjective one. They are therefore quite satisfactory for our purpose. Andrew (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2014 (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.