Right there with you friend, but unfortunately that's not how language works and there's no hard line as to what is and isn't a "hologram". Yes, you can coherently capture a real light wave field directly onto photo-material - you can also generate one synthetically, quantize your light field into spatial "hogels", eliminate an axis of parallax, constrict the FOV etc, and finally replace your interference-based "hogels" with lenses and you have an integral image or lenticular, which is different physics but exactly the same imaging principles. Every one of those stages is a "hologram" to some set of people - hardcore holographers might draw the line at analog techniques, researchers will accept anything interference-based, and laypeople will slap the label on just about anything that looks cool.
Believe me - this isn't a battle worth fighting. At the end of the day, everything is an illusion. Vision is not reality.
Source: many a long year making digital holograms and trying to explain to people what it is I do.