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 delete.  Sandstein  16:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Eastern Alliance

Eastern Alliance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Minor fictional element with no notability.The only reason it survived the first AfD is that Wikipedia is written by geeks (including myself), and we have inherent weakness for our geeky fiction. Sadly, now we also have rules on notability. Fortunately, we also have ficiton wikias ( http://galactica.wikia.com/wiki/Eastern_alliance) so there's will be no loss when we delete it. Those days, people who want to learn about fiction trivia like this go to wikia anyway. PS. Yes, yes, existence of wikia is not an argument in AfD, just a side-comment; in case anyone has doubts my main concern is the total lack of notability displayed by this in-universe entry, and its total lack of significance or real world impact. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - A rather minor element of the series, that was only a part of a very small handful of episodes. The article is mostly just plot, and there are almost no reliable sources discussing it in any way. The two books already included in the article as sources are pretty much it, and one of them (An analytical guide to television's Battlestar Galactica) is little more than a plot summary, and the other (Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy) just barely mentions them. Basically, the few, quoted passages that are in the "Reception" section of the article is the entire extent of sources that discuss the topic, which just simply is not enough to sustain an article. I was initially considering a redirect, but as it is such a generic name, I don't really think that's necessary. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep GNG is met with sources already included in the article. Failing that, a merge might be appropriate but WP:ATD makes it perfectly clear that even if deemed non-notable, deletion is not an option when there is an appropriate merge target. Jclemens ( talk) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Care to discuss how GNG is provided by those sources? I find it doubious anyone would ever discuss the significance of this concept, those sources are almost certainly in-universe mentions in passing. No prejudice against merge. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per 64.183.45.226. There is simply not enough real content here to even merge. Also, I have removed all of the questionable sourcing, leaving just the two books as potential "real" sources... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 12:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per 64.183.45.226. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

• Some more sources demonstrating notability... Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Mission Accomplished Or Mission Frakked Up?, An exploration of "SPACE: 1999" through the lens of fan fiction, Social History of the United States (10 volumes), Atomic culture: how we learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, An Analytical Guide to Television's Battlestar Galactica (Note that there are multiple mentions throughout this book, with varying levels of commentary). Obviously, the nominator is wrong when he suggests "I find it doubious anyone would ever discuss the significance of this concept". Science Fiction is fraught with symbolism, and in this case the Eastern Alliance has people analyzing it as a Soviet Bloc stand-in, as well as from an LDS theology perspective. Jclemens ( talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jclemens: I do appreciate your throughout research. But all we get is pretty much one-sentence for out-of-fictional-universe significance - that the "villainous Eastern Alliance is a thin-veiled surrogate for the "Eastern Bloc" countries of the Soviet Union". That's from the first source, all the others are just mentions in passing in the context of plot-summary. I am afraid one sentence about 'inspired by x' for real-world impact and significance is not enough of a threshold for stand-alone notability for a fictional plot element. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance participants: EEMIV ( talk · contribs), DGG ( talk · contribs), Casliber ( talk · contribs), Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs), Ryan4314 ( talk · contribs), MichaelQSchmidt ( talk · contribs), and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs). Cunard ( talk) 06:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The nomination claim of a "total lack of notability" is clearly false as there are several sources which discuss this as an allegory for the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Andrew Davidson: Great - could you cite your sources? I couldn't find any such references, beyond a single sentence that Jclemens found above. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep referenced and there is no geek made, must delete rule. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• <takei>Oh, my!</takei> Delete out of spite & seven-years-younger me was neither wrong nor obnoxious Oh, who am I kidding. Merge to main BSG series article, perhaps a section on commentary or criticism. The lack of follow-up discussion & action about merging or keeping or maintaining the article suggests ... well, nothing other than a niche, low-interest topic, whence it's reasonable to infer but insufficient to assert a lack of WP:GNG. There are a couple of third-party citations, but they look to be passing/fleeting mentions and not significant in depth or breadth of coverage. Still, if a few folks observe a real-world parallel between this and another bloc in the show, and given the relevance of that particularly in political climate of when the show was created, it'd be appropriate to snag those little tidbits, sneak them into the overarching article or section about BSG's real-world connections/relevance, and redirect to same (or dab it, since I'm sure there are other Eastern Alliances? Eastern Allii? out there). -- EEMIV ( talk) 18:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per available sourcability and allow expansion per Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy, Cinefantastique, Volume 35, Issues 1-6, The encyclopedia of TV science fiction, Sf-Worlds, and others avaiilable online and in libraries. Sorry, but simply saying something does " not belong" is not a valid deletion rational. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ MichaelQSchmidt: This is a discussion about Eastern Alliance, not Battlestar Galactica. Nobody is denying the show is notable, but in the sources you linked that I could access I couldn't see any non-trivial mention of the EA. If you could cite page numbers where it is discussed more than just in passing, or provide a quote - 2-3 sentences even, discussing its significance, etc. - it would be great. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, it is a discussion of Eastern Alliance and its relationship to the notable topic Battlestar Galactica. Per discussion of the alliance as a major plot device in [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and some others, as with Adama, Starbuck, and Apollo if not kept I'd be fine with a proper merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I was hoping for new sources, but those are the very same ones cited above that I already analyzed - some of those are mentions in passing, some pure plot summaries. Not a single one calls EA a 'major plot device', this is purely your own view, I am afraid. Not that being a major plot device matters - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cylon War (2nd nomination) was likely bigger and it just got merged, because again, nobody could find anything except few mentions in passing and a ton of plot summaries. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete/Rename - a term used in a few episodes of a television show is not notable in the way it is presented here. It should be moved to Eastern Alliance (Battlestar Galactica) at a minimum, but probably just deleted. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm a fan of the show, but the sources given are passing mentions and do not amount to "significant coverage", and it's hard to see how coverage could ever exist. Most of the article could be into the episode lists or deleted outright. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is not a major element of the work of fiction, it has not received extensive critical commentary. Most of the critical references to it are simply passing references in plot summary. One source has been provided indicating it was inspired by the real world Eastern Bloc, but the commentary provided by that source is not extensive enough to base an article upon. SJK ( talk) 07:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. Mentions of it's allegorical nature are not significant coverage. I agree that it is not a major element of the work of fiction, and does not meet the WP:GNG. -- Bejnar ( talk) 13:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - lack of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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.