- 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 merge to Galactic Republic. Sandstein 10:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
New Republic (Star Wars)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- New Republic (Star Wars) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the Old Republic seems to have gotten some borderline scholarly analysis (see my prior nom below), the New Republic seems to have nothing going for it - all I see are just pure plot summaries and mentions in passing. The usual problems abund, meaning the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Perhaps redirect to the Old Republic if that one survives the AfD? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 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| reply here 08:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Deletion is not appropriate as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Discussing the best way to cover the various governments in the sprawling Star Wars franchise is best done in relevant projects and talk page, not at AfD, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Republic for much more of this. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Very clearly notable. Major element of a very significant franchise. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is even a Rangers of the New Republic TV show about to hit Disney Plus. That alone does not make it notable, but that does give you an idea of how far reaching the topic is. Dark knight 2149 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep "WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage" I disagree. Dark knight 2149 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as per arguments above. Notable. Timmccloud ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge. The keep votes above are quite sorry. "Major element of a very significant franchise" - so what?
WP:KEEPPER. This is fancruft that fails notability, as the nominator explained. Growling from possible annoyed fans of that franchise won't change this, not unless they can present the needed sources. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
06:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Did you even do a source check?
Dark
knight
2149
08:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see no evidence you produced which makes your argument a
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES-style fallacy. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
04:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that there "must" be sources. I'm stating that there are sources. It could also be said that your comment is a WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE fallacy, since you have given no indication that you performed a source check before making this snide WP:BATTLEGROUND-level comment. That being said, I myself would not be opposed to merging all of the Star Wars Republic articles together, considering that I was literally the first to suggest it on another AfD. Dark knight 2149 09:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see no evidence you produced which makes your argument a
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES-style fallacy. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
04:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Did you even do a source check?
Dark
knight
2149
08:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. I am of the view that "New Republic" is essentially a
content fork of
Galactic Republic in terms of both its in-universe and out-of-universe information. For all intents and purposes, it is a continuation of the so-called Old Republic's model of governance and tenets so any real world analysis for Galactic Republic also applies to this topic, only discernable difference being relatively small in-universe details like a different seat of power etc.
Haleth (
talk)
21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Haleth, I am fine with merge in principle, but precious little content is referenced here, which makes a lot of this
WP:FANCRUFTy
WP:OR/
WP:PLOT. Anyway, I don't object to any merge, but I think the plot summary / fancruft in the target article needs pruning, not expanding. The 99% fancrut/plot summary to 1% reliable reception/analysis structure is hardly best practices.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are coming across as being absolutionist, a viewpoint that is not isolated to this discussion based on our past interactions. Your subjective sweeping dismissal of sources based on their business model as opposed to the actual verifiability or quality of their content is not reflected by any community consensus I can see which mark the sources listed by
Darkknight2149 as unreliable or deprecated for use. All of the plot details in the New Republic can be easily be cited with any of the pop culture websites as secondary sources which recap the movies' plot, and some of them have already been listed
Darkknight2149 with none of them raising red flags as being unreliable. The real question here isn't whether the topic is noteworthy or if it is worth any coverage, but whether
it warrants a standalone article page. As I said before, any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic, and how much plot information regarding the New Republic editors should cover can be addressed in the merge target's talk page (
WP:UNDUE discussions etc), if the ultimate consensus is to merge.
Haleth (
talk)
03:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Haleth, I have no idea what makes you say that "any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic" given that said discussions don't mention the New Republic or if they do they see both republics as closely related. Merge is reasonable through the NR article has no reception/analysis, being pure plot summary, so it is of little use to the readers (as in, readers for such topis are much better served by resources like https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/New_Republic . FYI long ago I supported implementing redirects to wikia articles like that but the community did not approve of that idea. So these days we are serving readers lower quality fancruft that what wikia offers - the worst of both words, neither comprehensive/nicely formatted, nor encyclopedic. This is not a good place to be... We should provide readers with what those fan-sites don't - summary of scholarly analysis and such, which for them is trivia of little importance, and leave the extensive plot summary to them. And if a topic has received no scholarly or even journalistic analysis that goes beyond plot summary, well, it does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:ALLPLOT and like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are coming across as being absolutionist, a viewpoint that is not isolated to this discussion based on our past interactions. Your subjective sweeping dismissal of sources based on their business model as opposed to the actual verifiability or quality of their content is not reflected by any community consensus I can see which mark the sources listed by
Darkknight2149 as unreliable or deprecated for use. All of the plot details in the New Republic can be easily be cited with any of the pop culture websites as secondary sources which recap the movies' plot, and some of them have already been listed
Darkknight2149 with none of them raising red flags as being unreliable. The real question here isn't whether the topic is noteworthy or if it is worth any coverage, but whether
it warrants a standalone article page. As I said before, any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic, and how much plot information regarding the New Republic editors should cover can be addressed in the merge target's talk page (
WP:UNDUE discussions etc), if the ultimate consensus is to merge.
Haleth (
talk)
03:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Haleth, I am fine with merge in principle, but precious little content is referenced here, which makes a lot of this
WP:FANCRUFTy
WP:OR/
WP:PLOT. Anyway, I don't object to any merge, but I think the plot summary / fancruft in the target article needs pruning, not expanding. The 99% fancrut/plot summary to 1% reliable reception/analysis structure is hardly best practices.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to WP:PRESERVE the content here at a related Star Wars article like Galactic Republic. Both articles are shaky on sources for notability but might be better together. Archrogue ( talk) 20:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as I am also not moved by someone saying keep as they "disagree" that there's no sourcing, while failing to present any, or the "it's clearly notable" argument made without demonstrating that it is. This is a fan cruft mess that needs
WP:TNT to ever be its own page. I'm unconvinced that this can't be covered by
Galactic Republic. It doesn't look to me like there's much to
WP:PRESERVE so I would not be against a delete-and-redirect. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
21:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also not moved by "it's just not notable" and "it's just fancruft" arguments. Or even "There's not much to merge or preserve" arguments which assume that notability applies to article content. (One of the comments I replied to above not only fails WP:AGF, but outright borders on WP:Overzealous deletion) Since I'm usually the one who has to lay this stuff out anyway, here are some of the sources covering the topic. There are existing print sources as well.
- Reliable coverage and journalistic commentary of the topic clearly isn't as rare as what is being claimed here. "But there must be sources!" No, there are sources.
Dark
knight
2149
09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149, Those are very weak sources, mentions in passing and/or plot summaries. I've shown in the other article what 'good sources' are - academic articles comparing the concept of SW republic to real-world Roman or German republics, for example. What you linked above - mostly repetitive plot summaries from the new geeky bait clickers - is a far cry from the quality we are trying to achieve these days. The New Republic did not receive any reliable scholarly analysis, just plot summaries and fan speculations, a few of them published in the form of rambling baitclick-style blogs. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Those are absolutely not "passing mentions" and "plot summaries". The fact that you are claiming that they are "baitclick vlogs" honestly shows that you either didn't read them, aren't familiar with the sources themselves, or are just being dismissive. In fact, several of them (Wired, THR, Vox, Screen Crush, etc) are specifically critical analysis on the topic. The others aren't trivial coverage either.
- "academic articles comparing the concept of SW republic to real-world Roman or German republics" That's not what "significant coverage" means. A fictional topic does not have to have a groundbreaking real world effect or thousands of academic papers comparing it to real world mythology to be considered notable. Per WP:SIGCOV:
- Reliable coverage and journalistic commentary of the topic clearly isn't as rare as what is being claimed here. "But there must be sources!" No, there are sources.
Dark
knight
2149
09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The sources here fit the bill. Besides, the sources mentioned in parentheses above are the type of academic analysis you are talking about anyway. But no, fiction is a topic in and of itself covered on Wikipedia. Articles are not covered in-universe, but you seemed to suggest on a few occasions that any mentioning of plot (or even a critical critique or analysis of a fictional work's plot, or even a paragraph listing off the real world history of a fictional work) is somehow a violation of WP:NOTPLOT, and that's just not how that works. There have even been several nominations (such as this one, among a couple of others) where users pointed out to you that your standard for reliability is often really high and eclipses the community's.
- But to clarify:
- "Significantly coverage" =/= "How does this fictional topic hold a special significance to the real world? Did it cure cancer?"
- "Significant coverage" = "Was this topic covered significantly, especially well enough to flesh out behind-the-scenes and Reception sections in fiction articles?".
-
Dark
knight
2149
12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Darkknight2149: I agree that Wired has good reputation. But where is the critical analysis of the 'New Republic' concept in [1]? Can you provide quotations of such an analysis? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Dark
knight
2149
12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Piotr that this is pretty weak and is not making me believe that the necessary "significant coverage" exists. It's mere mentions, and a TV show that we know nothing about. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to build consensus. There aren't sources that really refer to this as a separate topic in direct detail, considering there are numerous Star Wars articles that already summarize this subject, including a questionable article about the older Galactic Republic. My read of the sources doesn't show enough coverage to establish separate notability, but even a generous reading would make this a WP:CONTENTFORK at best, retreading content that already exists in other Star Wars articles. Shooterwalker ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Galactic Republic per others. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:10, 21 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.
- 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 merge to Galactic Republic. Sandstein 10:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
New Republic (Star Wars)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- New Republic (Star Wars) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the Old Republic seems to have gotten some borderline scholarly analysis (see my prior nom below), the New Republic seems to have nothing going for it - all I see are just pure plot summaries and mentions in passing. The usual problems abund, meaning the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Perhaps redirect to the Old Republic if that one survives the AfD? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 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| reply here 08:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Deletion is not appropriate as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Discussing the best way to cover the various governments in the sprawling Star Wars franchise is best done in relevant projects and talk page, not at AfD, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Republic for much more of this. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Very clearly notable. Major element of a very significant franchise. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is even a Rangers of the New Republic TV show about to hit Disney Plus. That alone does not make it notable, but that does give you an idea of how far reaching the topic is. Dark knight 2149 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep "WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage" I disagree. Dark knight 2149 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as per arguments above. Notable. Timmccloud ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge. The keep votes above are quite sorry. "Major element of a very significant franchise" - so what?
WP:KEEPPER. This is fancruft that fails notability, as the nominator explained. Growling from possible annoyed fans of that franchise won't change this, not unless they can present the needed sources. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
06:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Did you even do a source check?
Dark
knight
2149
08:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see no evidence you produced which makes your argument a
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES-style fallacy. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
04:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that there "must" be sources. I'm stating that there are sources. It could also be said that your comment is a WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE fallacy, since you have given no indication that you performed a source check before making this snide WP:BATTLEGROUND-level comment. That being said, I myself would not be opposed to merging all of the Star Wars Republic articles together, considering that I was literally the first to suggest it on another AfD. Dark knight 2149 09:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see no evidence you produced which makes your argument a
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES-style fallacy. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
04:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Did you even do a source check?
Dark
knight
2149
08:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. I am of the view that "New Republic" is essentially a
content fork of
Galactic Republic in terms of both its in-universe and out-of-universe information. For all intents and purposes, it is a continuation of the so-called Old Republic's model of governance and tenets so any real world analysis for Galactic Republic also applies to this topic, only discernable difference being relatively small in-universe details like a different seat of power etc.
Haleth (
talk)
21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Haleth, I am fine with merge in principle, but precious little content is referenced here, which makes a lot of this
WP:FANCRUFTy
WP:OR/
WP:PLOT. Anyway, I don't object to any merge, but I think the plot summary / fancruft in the target article needs pruning, not expanding. The 99% fancrut/plot summary to 1% reliable reception/analysis structure is hardly best practices.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are coming across as being absolutionist, a viewpoint that is not isolated to this discussion based on our past interactions. Your subjective sweeping dismissal of sources based on their business model as opposed to the actual verifiability or quality of their content is not reflected by any community consensus I can see which mark the sources listed by
Darkknight2149 as unreliable or deprecated for use. All of the plot details in the New Republic can be easily be cited with any of the pop culture websites as secondary sources which recap the movies' plot, and some of them have already been listed
Darkknight2149 with none of them raising red flags as being unreliable. The real question here isn't whether the topic is noteworthy or if it is worth any coverage, but whether
it warrants a standalone article page. As I said before, any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic, and how much plot information regarding the New Republic editors should cover can be addressed in the merge target's talk page (
WP:UNDUE discussions etc), if the ultimate consensus is to merge.
Haleth (
talk)
03:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Haleth, I have no idea what makes you say that "any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic" given that said discussions don't mention the New Republic or if they do they see both republics as closely related. Merge is reasonable through the NR article has no reception/analysis, being pure plot summary, so it is of little use to the readers (as in, readers for such topis are much better served by resources like https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/New_Republic . FYI long ago I supported implementing redirects to wikia articles like that but the community did not approve of that idea. So these days we are serving readers lower quality fancruft that what wikia offers - the worst of both words, neither comprehensive/nicely formatted, nor encyclopedic. This is not a good place to be... We should provide readers with what those fan-sites don't - summary of scholarly analysis and such, which for them is trivia of little importance, and leave the extensive plot summary to them. And if a topic has received no scholarly or even journalistic analysis that goes beyond plot summary, well, it does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:ALLPLOT and like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are coming across as being absolutionist, a viewpoint that is not isolated to this discussion based on our past interactions. Your subjective sweeping dismissal of sources based on their business model as opposed to the actual verifiability or quality of their content is not reflected by any community consensus I can see which mark the sources listed by
Darkknight2149 as unreliable or deprecated for use. All of the plot details in the New Republic can be easily be cited with any of the pop culture websites as secondary sources which recap the movies' plot, and some of them have already been listed
Darkknight2149 with none of them raising red flags as being unreliable. The real question here isn't whether the topic is noteworthy or if it is worth any coverage, but whether
it warrants a standalone article page. As I said before, any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic, and how much plot information regarding the New Republic editors should cover can be addressed in the merge target's talk page (
WP:UNDUE discussions etc), if the ultimate consensus is to merge.
Haleth (
talk)
03:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Haleth, I am fine with merge in principle, but precious little content is referenced here, which makes a lot of this
WP:FANCRUFTy
WP:OR/
WP:PLOT. Anyway, I don't object to any merge, but I think the plot summary / fancruft in the target article needs pruning, not expanding. The 99% fancrut/plot summary to 1% reliable reception/analysis structure is hardly best practices.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to WP:PRESERVE the content here at a related Star Wars article like Galactic Republic. Both articles are shaky on sources for notability but might be better together. Archrogue ( talk) 20:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as I am also not moved by someone saying keep as they "disagree" that there's no sourcing, while failing to present any, or the "it's clearly notable" argument made without demonstrating that it is. This is a fan cruft mess that needs
WP:TNT to ever be its own page. I'm unconvinced that this can't be covered by
Galactic Republic. It doesn't look to me like there's much to
WP:PRESERVE so I would not be against a delete-and-redirect. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
21:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also not moved by "it's just not notable" and "it's just fancruft" arguments. Or even "There's not much to merge or preserve" arguments which assume that notability applies to article content. (One of the comments I replied to above not only fails WP:AGF, but outright borders on WP:Overzealous deletion) Since I'm usually the one who has to lay this stuff out anyway, here are some of the sources covering the topic. There are existing print sources as well.
- Reliable coverage and journalistic commentary of the topic clearly isn't as rare as what is being claimed here. "But there must be sources!" No, there are sources.
Dark
knight
2149
09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149, Those are very weak sources, mentions in passing and/or plot summaries. I've shown in the other article what 'good sources' are - academic articles comparing the concept of SW republic to real-world Roman or German republics, for example. What you linked above - mostly repetitive plot summaries from the new geeky bait clickers - is a far cry from the quality we are trying to achieve these days. The New Republic did not receive any reliable scholarly analysis, just plot summaries and fan speculations, a few of them published in the form of rambling baitclick-style blogs. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Those are absolutely not "passing mentions" and "plot summaries". The fact that you are claiming that they are "baitclick vlogs" honestly shows that you either didn't read them, aren't familiar with the sources themselves, or are just being dismissive. In fact, several of them (Wired, THR, Vox, Screen Crush, etc) are specifically critical analysis on the topic. The others aren't trivial coverage either.
- "academic articles comparing the concept of SW republic to real-world Roman or German republics" That's not what "significant coverage" means. A fictional topic does not have to have a groundbreaking real world effect or thousands of academic papers comparing it to real world mythology to be considered notable. Per WP:SIGCOV:
- Reliable coverage and journalistic commentary of the topic clearly isn't as rare as what is being claimed here. "But there must be sources!" No, there are sources.
Dark
knight
2149
09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The sources here fit the bill. Besides, the sources mentioned in parentheses above are the type of academic analysis you are talking about anyway. But no, fiction is a topic in and of itself covered on Wikipedia. Articles are not covered in-universe, but you seemed to suggest on a few occasions that any mentioning of plot (or even a critical critique or analysis of a fictional work's plot, or even a paragraph listing off the real world history of a fictional work) is somehow a violation of WP:NOTPLOT, and that's just not how that works. There have even been several nominations (such as this one, among a couple of others) where users pointed out to you that your standard for reliability is often really high and eclipses the community's.
- But to clarify:
- "Significantly coverage" =/= "How does this fictional topic hold a special significance to the real world? Did it cure cancer?"
- "Significant coverage" = "Was this topic covered significantly, especially well enough to flesh out behind-the-scenes and Reception sections in fiction articles?".
-
Dark
knight
2149
12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Darkknight2149: I agree that Wired has good reputation. But where is the critical analysis of the 'New Republic' concept in [1]? Can you provide quotations of such an analysis? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Dark
knight
2149
12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Piotr that this is pretty weak and is not making me believe that the necessary "significant coverage" exists. It's mere mentions, and a TV show that we know nothing about. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to build consensus. There aren't sources that really refer to this as a separate topic in direct detail, considering there are numerous Star Wars articles that already summarize this subject, including a questionable article about the older Galactic Republic. My read of the sources doesn't show enough coverage to establish separate notability, but even a generous reading would make this a WP:CONTENTFORK at best, retreading content that already exists in other Star Wars articles. Shooterwalker ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Galactic Republic per others. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:10, 21 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.