Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core worlds: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:23, 3 July 2008

Core worlds

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that is all this article consists of, with examples that do not demonstrate the term or its origin. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the primary entry for the concepts such as homeworld or homeplanet. Perhaps a move is in order, but the subject is highly notable and encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a notable concept to me. The article is not a dictionary defintion. --neon white talk 01:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no citations to reliable sources. Use of the term across media is just a collection of trivia/plot summary. Unless someone cites a secondary source asserting the term across franchises has an underlying, common use, then it's just original research to suggest the term in one franchise means the same/something similar in another. --EEMIV (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's comment: This was one of my very first creations, and has lasted this long. I've long since forgotten about it, and it has grown all on its own. Now, of course, I understand the need for sources. I think this term is a bit more than trivial, and a search here should not simply go to Star Wars; the term is even now used in certain video game circles, suggesting the usage is understood by more than just hardcore scifi fans. I think this article is in need of {{rescue}}! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Subject is significant enough to be in the title of published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- significant enough to be in the title of published books - Hardly sufficient to establish notability. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? --EEMIV (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sufficient enough by any reasonable standards and as usual, apples and oranges. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - as usual - How so? I know you're the master of amalgamating diffs; please offer some. Please post on my talk page since I doubt it's germane here. --EEMIV (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 **''significant enough to be in the title of published books'' - Hardly sufficient to establish notability. ''Zen and the Art of [[Motorcycle Maintenance]]''? --[[User:EEMIV|EEMIV]] ([[User talk:EEMIV|talk]]) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 ***Sufficient enough by any reasonable standards and as usual, apples and oranges.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
+****''as usual'' - How so? I know you're the master of amalgamating diffs; please offer some. Please post on my talk page since I doubt it's germane here. --[[User:EEMIV|EEMIV]] ([[User talk:EEMIV|talk]]) 04:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)