Deletion of Alliance (Firefly)

Comment: The topic is discussed in detail in sources such as http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DM-889ISwMIC&pg=PA220 this, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NK99ag6k7mgC&pg=PA189 that and http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IPNSR9PQ76gC more.  It therefore passes the  and the complaints of the nomination are just a matter of ordinary editing per our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: While the Alliance isn't the main topic of the sources, I think they provide more than trivial mentions, which satisfies the "significant coverage" criterion in the . I agree that the article is written in primarily an in-universe style, but it should be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction|expanded or re-written to emphasize the real-world perspective, |not deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RUBBISH)

Comment: Just plot (#PLOT) and riginal research based on observation of the plot. For this kind of fictional element, I doubt there's much real-world information to start with to sustain the in-universe info for a spinout article (this organisation can't be produced, designed, or received, and the creator's inspiration for this certainly fits in the main article without this extra article). &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:O)

Comment: oh look! It's the same set of voices as the Browncoat and Reaver (Firefly) AfD debates.  On both sides, pretty much.  And just like those debates, this one is characterized by those arguing for keeping the article having plenty of adequate sources to meet the GNG.  BUT, even if it weren't so, the content could clearly be merged to another Firefly or Serenity article, per : just because the article was not adequately sourced when the AfD was started does not mean that any of this content is un-source''able
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)