Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocron

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 redirect to Star Wars Expanded Universe. — Aitias // discussion 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocron[edit]

A collection of snippets of plot summary from disparate Star Wars Expanded Universe sources -- but no overall assertion or substantiation that the items are themselves notable. References are to primary sources or in-universe encyclopedias/references that themselves offer just plot; no indication that the topic has been subject of any third-party coverage. Prose itself contains snippets of original research (e.g. "holocrons seem to indicate"). First two pages of Google Books search yields mostly the same in-universe texts as the article calls on; first out-of-universe use of the term is for a similarly-named mountain; another, a single parenthetical use of the word in a 310-page book. All together, the article fails WP:OR, WP:N. --EEMIV (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars Expanded Universe. Vanishingly little coverage. None (that I can see) independent from lucasfilm and friends. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a redirect to the EU article is appropriate. The article I think doesn't mention "holocrons," and I'm not sure it's the best course to redirect EU-only ideas to the EU article, lest someone misinterpret such redirects as suggesting the idea that the article needs a crufty, "List of Star Wars concepts that appear only in the EU". --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/RedirectYet another non-notable fiction topic. Article's can't and shouldn't be based solely on primary sources.--Crossmr (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Should be included in that article and redirected to appropriate section so people searching for this information can find it. Not notable enough for independent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2008 (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.