Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of His Dark Materials terminology


 * 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   no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of His Dark Materials terminology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list of terms does not establish notability independent of His Dark Materials through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Dictionary definitions without any apparent outside notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There are multiple in-depth sources for Pullman's work, including 2 independent/unauthorised books (Parkin and Jones's Dark Matters and Paul Simpson's Rough Guide To His Dark Materials) and a lot of other media coverage. So it is almost certainly possible to reference most of this to reliable sources. Having said that, a merge may be an option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'm afraid I don't recognise some of the arguments for deletion. Specifically, I don't see 'overly in-depth plot details', the references/examples in the article seem brief and concise to me. Nor does the OSborn argument seem valid, yes these ARE definitions, however it is the contrast between OUR meaning and Pullman's which is partly of interest, and - as in a real dictionary - the linguistic root which is of secondary interest.

Pullman does use and modify and invent 'English' terms, place-names, concepts etc. and then use them to his own purpose. It HAPPENED to be the case that when I read this trilogy, I knew the Latin/Greek origins of some of his terms. Also, the echoes/association between his Muscovy and our Moscow/Russia would be obvious to almost everyone, however very few of us would recognise ALL the linguistic parallels/echoes/subversions of meanings employed by Pullman. I personally found this page useful and educative when I came upon it, which is why I took an interest in it.

As for the 'lack of sources' argument, do we REALLY need to cite a third party source that the original meaning of 'Alethia' is the Greek for truth, and that Pullman's Alethiometer is therefore a truth device/truth finder? There are many examples within this page where the 'authority' to compare the 'our world' meaning with the Pullman usage would simply be a dictionary (Greek, Latin, English, various Scandinavian languages, and, probably umpteen others). To cite a dictionary to show the source of, or prove an association between 'our meaning' and Pullman's use seems needlessly pedantic to me.

I would not be opposed to this page merging with something else, though there do seem to be advantages also to it existing on its own (not everyone is going to be interested in Pullman's 'language games') .... I do however think it would a great shame to delete it.

I am INTENTIONALLY, not making any arguments either for or against the general rules of covering Literature on Wikipedia, partly because I think that it may be the case that HDM deserves and requires particular treatment.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources covering this dark material such as The Elements of His Dark Materials; Exploring Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials;His Dark Materials Illuminated; &c. And notice that this educational work recommends our page as a good source. Warden (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:NOT, glossary articles do not belong on Wikipedia.  Move it to Wikia or a fan site.  Relevant sections could be optionally moved into the appropriate articles, as long as they are sourced.  The aforementioned sources could easily be used to flesh out the parent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT says nothing about glossaries. WP:DICDEF explicitly allows for them — "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field" — and  Wikipedia indeed contains numerous glossaries and so it is evidently our policy to have them. Warden (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment There seem to be two (wholly contradictory) arguments being put forward for deletion, the first is that the page is 'overly in-depth plot details', the second is that this page is simply a glossary. Since glossaries are allowed, and since a glossary is a useful adjunct to THIS PARTICULAR BOOK, and since also such a glossary of a rational, organised, systematic form is unlikely to be found elsewhere on the net, I cannot see any reason to delete ... Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * While WP:DICDEF is somewhat unclear on what an encyclopedic glossary is (the link no longer shows useful information for that,) my reading is that this is not such a glossary. The reasoning for this is that encyclopedic glossaries are glossaries needed to be able to read an encyclopedia article on a subject. We have, selecting a random glossary for example, Glossary of arithmetic and Diophantine geometry (or one about religion, etc...), because it is necessary to understand those technical terms to read an article about those subjects.y
 * This case differs substantially because these words are not likely to show up in an encyclopedia article about His Dark Materials. I find this case analogous to having a dictionary of Quenya. Such a dictionary would run afoul of DICDEF because it is unreasonable for Quenya to show up in a Wikipedia article.
 * The second part of my !vote addressed a way this article could have skirted DICDEF, by showing that these words are themselves notable (and thus WP:WORDISSUBJECT would apply.) This does not seem to be the case. While books have been published about His Dark Materials, I do not see any indication that the words used in the book could pass WP:GNG.
 * I do not understand how you see plot details and dicdef as being contradictory arguments.
 * OSborn arfcontribs. 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The contradiction seems to be between the accusation of providing EXCESSIVE plot information (the original grounds for deletion) and being little more than a dictionary .... for the record I think you are right, this article IS a glossary (and a glossary of words that would not be found in any 'real-world' dictionary). I think that such a glossary is useful/interesting to the reader, who otherwise would need to be fluent in Greek, Latin and the umpteen other languages Pullman plunders in order to begin to see the games he is playing. Since the article is fairly well, clearly written, I see no benefit to deletion. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Much of the content in the article can be sourced, e.g. there is information on "alethiometer" in Dark Matter: Shedding Light on Philip Pullman's Trilogy His Dark Materials and Exploring Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Anything that doesn't have a source can be removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how those can accomplish much of anything for this article. There is some discussion on the relation between real science and the author's use of it in the fictional world, but that's something more easily summed up in a paragraph in the main article. The real specifics on the actually in-universe stuff is just an analysis of how they function in the fictional world without anything to really provide much of a true real world perspective. TTN (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just noticed there were actual quotes from the author in one of them. I thought it was just more novel quotes. I still don't think it would require this article to discuss the topic. Putting a section in the main article and allowing it to grow would be the better option, and then a proper article on whatever gets too large could be split out. TTN (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

CommentI see that Cerebellum may have made the same mistake as me, namely that "alethiometer" and many other words which are essential to understanding the plot are actually in the MAIN article, not in this glossary. The words in this glossary I would characterise as being 'of interest' rather than 'essential' and perhaps would be better as a section of the main article.

I point everyone to the link that Warden provides above, in which an educationalist recommends THIS SPECIFIC PAGE as a source for teachers and students (she also provides a link to a fan-site with the same information, however the fan-site has since removed that page).

I looked around a few Wikipedia articles on books in which 'invented words/invented meanings' were a significant component (e.g. Clockwork Orange), in many of them there was coverage of how the words were sourced and used, with coverage appropriate to that particular book. In Pullman's case the invention and use are not schematic in the way they are in 'Orange'.

Commenting on the comparison with Quenya, (which I know nothing about), a dictionary of Quenya (or Klingon or ....) would probably present all the same practical problems as a Dictionary of German or ANY REAL language. If we started now we would still be arguing in 10 years time, and the finished dictionary would be SO large and of SUCH marginal benefit to most readers as to be pointless. Neither of these considerations applies here.

I can understand arguments to merge or improve this page, I cannot understand the need to delete it.Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To help explain what's happening here, note that the nominator is engaged in a general program of nominating topics about fiction for deletion and the language of the nomination is cut/paste without any specifics of this particular case. The proper process of considering alternatives to deletion has not been followed per deletion policy.  There has been no discussion on the article's talk page nor has the original author of the page been notified.  The nominator was previously banned from such activity by the community for a period of six months after he tried its patience with a previous deletion spree.  The nominator was absent from Wikipedia for several years following that but here we go again.  Unfortunately, Twinkle makes it easy for hostile editors to create numerous nominations without any effort and it's then good faith editors like yourself who have to notice and waste their time in argument. Thank you for  taking the trouble.  Warden (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This list does not currently have any uses to this encyclopedia overall. It does not have anything to establish notability for the topic of the author's overall terminology, and it does not act as a necessary companion article like a character list. These details are not required to understand the series, and anything complicated will generally be discussed in the plot details. Using other series as examples to keep it is pointless because all of the articles are in varying degrees of quality, so their coverage of their fictional words cannot be used as a comparison. You need something like Klingon language. The article itself is a mess, but it is showing the real world importance of the dialog. It needs vast cleanup and possibly a merge into its parent article, but it is at least asserting that discussion about it is relevant. This list exists only through the dedication of fans rather than as something truly encyclopedic like real world discussion of the relevance of his style of writing or whatever else. Wikia is more suited for such topics. There is no need to merge because there is nothing to merge. Inserting any of that into the main article would likely end up with it being cut during regular cleanup, and there is no real way to improve it bar completely renaming it and starting from scratch. That would be the same as deleting it and splitting a proper article out from the main article at some point. TTN (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The value of this page is shown by the reference in the external educational source which is publihsed by the reputable imprint of Routledge. Warden (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the multiple in depth reliable sources found by Colapeninsula, Warden and Cerebellum. There are ample RS for this article. The article is structured according to the glossaries section WP:GLOSS of the Manual of style. The nominator's complaint of overly in-depth plot details makes me wonder whether they have read the article; this article is a glossary of terms in a synthetic language, not a plot synopsis of the novels. A notable topic and no major article problems suggest keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, when you describe a part of a story, whether it is character actions, settings, or objects or whatever that is in-universe, that's plot detail. Because characters, settings or objects don't exist independently of the fiction that features them. "plot" does not refer only to a "synopsis", it's everything that forms a fiction. So yes, this article is plot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge whatever can be sourced to His_Dark_Materials, otherwise Delete. A plot-summary article that violates WP:NOTPLOT and thus does not establish notability through significant coverage in secondary sources. Sources brought up in the discussion don't provide significant coverage, only plot rehash without any kind of commentay or analysis whatsoever that could help build a "reception" section. Because per WP:NOTPLOT, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". This really doesn't pass notability for a stand-alone article, but as a compromise, whatever plot clarification readers might need (and can be sourced) can go to His_Dark_Materials as indicated.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment It would be useful if those who assert that too much of this page is un-sourced, would point out which parts NEED or WOULD BENEFIT FROM 'sourcing'. We don't need sources for words or events within the books, since the book itself is the source. We can of course have different opinions about whether any of those events/words etc. contribute anything to the coverage and whether the descriptions of those words or events is as accurate, clear and neutral as possible, but generalised comments about the lack of sources are not especially constructive, when what the article attempts to cover are FACTUAL MATTERS within the books.Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a notability discussion, thus involving a specific level of sourcing which is detailed at WP:GNG, and primary sources (ie the books) don't correspond to that notability requirement. That the article only covers "factual matters with in the books" is the very reason why it's up for deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Touché .... I did not express myself very carefully/clearly. What perhaps I should have said is that much of the "un-sourced" information in this Glossary relates directly to factual matters within the book. There may well be the need for outside sources for the fundamental assumption that Pullman's linguistic inventions are a significant component of the book, in context, I think that would constitute 'notability'.Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability concerns aside, you're right, and that's why I recommend for the content to be trimmed down to most important terms be merged into His_Dark_Materials.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Basically, I agree with Warden: for sufficiently major works of fiction articles like this help the reader and provide information important to understanding the work. I think they should be encouraged. BTW, has anyone made a proper source in professional sources for secondary material ? There's an immense and growing amount on Pullman, so the article has potential for expansion.  DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 19 September 2013 (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.