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 delete. Without sufficient reliable sources, it cannot be demonstrated that this glossary is not original research. The sources given here appear to be about the series, not necessarily about the terms that appear in this article. The arguments to keep were not convincing (WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF). I would be willing to restore the article for the purpose of merging some of its content to another article, or merging all of its content to another wiki, if desired. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms in the Jean le Flambeur series[edit]

Glossary of terms in the Jean le Flambeur series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An in-universe glossary for a two-book novel series. Problematic per WP:NOR (reads like original research), WP:NOT#PLOT (article is only plot summary) and WP:N (the topic of the terminology of this series is not, as such, the subject of coverage in reliable sources). Such content is better suited to fan wikis than to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  06:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A notice of this debate has been (tardily) posted at "WikiProject Glossaries" --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be useful, but as explained in WP:USEFUL we do not include information just because it is useful. If, as you say, the author has not explained these terms, but you are doing it here, then what you are engaging in is original research, which Wikipedia forbids. You should find another venue, such as a fan wiki, to publish such information (see WP:OUTLET for alternatives).  Sandstein  09:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference to the deletion essay -- but that's not policy. Deletion is always the last resort. Let's work instead on improving the article. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the original research claim: although the author has not explicitly explained these terms, he has provided information indirectly throughout his novels, which when collated in the article serves to clarify what the terminology refers to. This is not something unheard of in Wikipedia: many articles on notable novels, TV series, etc., contain information which explains certain special terminology used in the story universe but that is not explicitly explained in-universe, or explained piecemeal. Ex Novum (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you were able to supply quotes and/or page numbers for the inferences you made directly from the novels. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your interpretations, but it would be good to document the inferences if you can. If not -- well, I'm sure you know the rules re OR. And we do have some conflicts between the present text and newly-added secondary sources that will need to be resolved. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the strict need for reliable third parties. Note that some of the terms have been written about by third parties and have been cited in the article. If the concern is with unverifiable sources, we can remove the relevant information. Ex Novum (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first "source" cited in the article, http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=1206, describes the need for this article ("Readers (myself among them) may therefore come to the end of [the novel] feeling more than a little lost") but does not, as such, document any of the terms themselves. The second and final source on the article, http://www.strangehorizons.com/2010/20100809/clute-c.shtml, mentions "Dilemma Prison, which is a kind of space-habitat". However the article states "Dilemma Prisons are built and maintained by Archons". Where in the secondary source is this information coming from? Delete. audiodude (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that there is ample precedent for Wikipedia to host fan-related articles such as this glossary. Pete Tillman (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WAX. We certainly carry articles related to pop culture, like about any other topic. But every article, no matter about what, must meet our inclusion criteria, which are not dependent on the article's topic. And there's no room for improvement if there are no reliable secondary sources to base this glossary on.  Sandstein  09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for linking to this interesting essay (which still isn't policy). The essay is nicely done, obviously by veterans of this sort of discussion. So this is more than pro-forma courtesy. And I believe everyone participating in this discussion is working to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I do find it unusual that the first notification of problems with this article was a deletion request!
Secondary sources: I've added some, and another editor has fixed one of the cite errors Audiodude mentioned above . The John Clute review cited has a number of other discussions of Rajaniemi's wordplay and his use of what Clute calls a "prodigy house" or memory theater, that should be added to this glossary. Clute also notes (of Quantum Thief) that "synopsis is more or less impossible." [3]
Clute also has interesting material regarding "structurands through language games" that should be added, as well as an intricate discussion of Oubliette, the city that is the setting for most of Quantum Thief, that needs to be carefully parsed for use here -- Clute is a respected SF critic, but not a particularly transparent writer. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue adding more secondary sources. It looks like a number of references have been added since I worked on the article last, and it's improving over time. I'm not competent to work on it right now, not having access to the books, but when I do have them on hand I'll try to contribute more (if the article is still around). --Jim Henry (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the AfD discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/His Dark Materials terminology back in 2007. Result was KEEP. Pertinent to this discussion (and closing).
There was also a mid-2012 discussion of whether stand-alone glossaries at Glossaries discussion and resolution Glossaries were found to be "an acceptable form of standalone list. There was a strong support for the usability of significant glossaries ..." This resolution is pertinent to this discussion. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional secondary sources to consider[edit]

(subhead added to ease editing)

I'll add to this list (and the article) as time permits (I'm out of spare time now) -- but it's fair to say that there are many RS discussions of the Rajaniemi novels that haven't yet been used here. And it is very likely that academic discussions of the the Jean le Flambeur series will be forthcoming. This is an interesting and challenging series of books, and our glossary is a worthwhile and encyclopedic attempt to help readers to understand the books. Let's not cut off a promising article with a premature deletion. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably secondary sources such as reviews that can be used to source a few of these terms, true, but nothing close to most of them. And if we were to delete what's unsourceable, we'd be left with a list with very few entries. Moreover, this does not address the problem that the topic of the terminology of this series has not, as such, been the subject of discussion by third-party sources and so fails WP:N. What we could do is integrate the definitions that can be sourced into a WP:WAF-compliant description of the series's setting in an article about the series.  Sandstein  07:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of material available online for these two novels,which have made a big impact on the science-ficton world. With more to come, when the trilogy is completed. So we may do better than you think. We're currently up to 20 cites of 14 secondary sources, including many of SF's leading critics. I'm still working on it ;-] And the article has earned some praise online. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online praise for this Wikipedia glossary[edit]

"While in most works of imaginative fiction, a glossary of terms is an indulgence, here one is almost a necessity. (And where the book itself fails you, Wikipedia comes to the rescue.)" --Thomas M. Wagner at Sfreviews.net

"....the one thing I wish that The Quantum Thief really had is a glossary. ... The helpful wikipedia entry Glossary of Terms in the Quantum Thief is useful, though a part of me wants to recommend a “pure” reading experience." -- Review: The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi

"I found this on wikipedia - and think it might be very helpful whilst reading! Glossary of terms in Quantum Thief" -- Useful links for the Quantum Thief

Plus another 50+ mentions of the glossary online: Google search, mostly positive. There were a few grumbles about spoilers. But we seem to be filling a need. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that the glossary is useful. I found it while reading the novels and looking some of the odder terms up. However, as I mentioned above, usefulness is not a sufficient criterium for inclusion on Wikipedia. Content must additionally be verifiable, not original research, and be about a notable topic. There is a lot of useful content on the Internet that does not belong on Wikipedia, such as phone books, or business directories, or street maps (see WP:IINFO). This glossary is another example.  Sandstein  09:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing argument to keep this glossary[edit]

It seems to me that the core of the argument for deleting this glossary is verifiability: WP:No original research. We've already added a substantial number of new secondary sources, and will add more as we find them -- but it seems unlikely we will be able to cite all of the material in the glossary. Some pruning seems likely to be needed -- but needs to be done with care, as I've seen very few actual errors. What we are likely to have, instead, is some (hopefully small) percentage of correct, but unreferenced, content.

A case could be made that, in an ideal world, it would have been better to publish this glossary somewhere else. But it was written and published here, starting back in 2010. Many readers have found it useful, links to the article are widely available, and a lot of future readers will be inconvenienced and annoyed if they click the published links and find the article deleted. Deletion won't serve our core purpose of improving the encyclopedia -- see the essays at WP:Purpose and Wikipedia:Does deletion help.

So it seems to me that the best approach is to improve the article, bring it as close as we can to the ideals of WP:V (and all of the WP:Five pillars) -- and to recognize that, in the real world, no article is perfect. If this glossary serves the greater good of informing and educating our users -- well, that's why we have WP:Ignore all rules. We do need to remember what we're trying to accomplish here (see Wikipedia:The rules are principles), and to always WP:Use common sense. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2013 (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.
More