Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core worlds

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 keep. - Philippe 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

FWIW, I would not discount the subject of motorcycle maintenance as a possible article; it would not necessarily need to be written as a how-to. (I think GRC mentioned that criterion because it has sometimes been actually asked for by extreme deletionists). DGG (talk) 16:58, 5 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]

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.