Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha (fiction)

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 Canon (fiction). Clear consensus for either merge or redirect; the arguments against merging (WP:OR and sourcing issues) have enough support by the commenters and policy/guideline to carry the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha (fiction)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since December 2009, seems to be an unnotable neologism. Though, it is a difficult term to search because of other usages of the term "apocrypha" that can overlap with fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canon (fiction) with which this term is supposed to contrast. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to canon (fiction) without merge. That article is already tagged as being under-referenced and possibly containing original research, so I don't see any value in merging in still more completely unsourced information that may constitute more original research. The term clearly is used, though; I was quickly able to find two examples with a few minutes of searching [1][2]. However, it's only ever used in contrast with the concept of canon, so should be discussed in the same article to avoid WP:REDUNDANTFORK problems. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to canon (fiction), per Lowercaserho. The article is an unnecessary fork of the that article and, as there is nothing here that is based on sourced information, there is nothing that should be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to canon (fiction), per above. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2019 (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.