Deletion of Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999)

Comment: The Death Star has an article and Mos Eisley (cantina) as well. Star Wars is certainly larger than life- however?  so no reason to pare back IMO.  is not a policy here at Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: to Space: 1999 per the well reasoned arguments put forward by SpinningSpark. This isn't a fan website and I myself have helped pare back cruft in entertainment topics I like despite the personal interest I have in them, which keep!voters here don't seem able to do. This topic clearly doesn't pass  on its own, and a one or two sentence merge of Asimov's criticism to the main article is the only salvageable piece of this article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:FANCRUFT is an essay with no standing, not a policy-based reason to delete.  The nomination makes suggestions for development of the topic and deletion would neither be necessary nor appropriate to do this.  Our actual policies are , , , &c. while  and  tell us that AfD is not a place to bring editing suggestions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE||WP:BEFORE||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: to Space: 1999 with very limited merge.  The article is almost entirely in-universe description, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia per MOS:INUNIVERSE and  bullet #1.  The only salvageable out-of-universe encyclopaedic content is the description of Asimov's criticism of the show's use of ''dark side of the moon''. This can easily be merged to the already existing discussion of Asimov's scientific criticisms in the main article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)