Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Corellian Trilogy


 * 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 List of Star Wars books. After 2 relists, no-one has countered the strong argument that the articles fail the notability guideline but the redirect suggested by NinjaRobotPirate is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Corellian Trilogy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable series in the Star Wars universe; the individual books fail WP:NBOOK, as does the series, so I'm listing them all:


 * Mikeblas (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mikeblas (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mikeblas (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 19.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge all individual book articles into the trilogy article. Books which form part of the Star Wars Expanded Universe are treated as a type of Star Wars canon, AFAIK, but there doesn't seem to be enough here for individual articles for each book. Ivanvector (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe there's enough for the series, even after the merge? Nothing in the source articles is referenced, so we'd just have a single larger article of unreferenced and non-notable material after the proposed merge. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that seems to be standard fare for articles on Expanded Universe works here. There are dozens of them and few have any references at all, but we keep them anyway. You might say they inherit notability by virtue of being Star Wars licensed works. Ivanvector (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Star Wars books. There is no inherited notability.  It has to stand on its own.  Deletion would be OK as a fallback.  I don't see any obvious signs of notability, professional reviews, or much of anything else outside of blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.