Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythology of Lost


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mythology of Lost

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As much as I love this show, this article has been tagged with problems for too many years without any improvement. It is purely an overly-detailed display of the show's plot and recurring elements without any significant interpretation or reliable sources to back up claims. Enough worthy and cited material can already be found at the main Lost (TV series) article, as well as its season and episode articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Much plot regurgitation, but very little else. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete in agreement with the nominator. This doesn't really seem like appropriate content for Wikipedia (as it is mostly unsourced or interpretative speculation from primary/non-independent sources) and represents a content fork where none is needed.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not to evoke WP:OSE, but I'm a primary contributor on another Abrams show's mythology page Mythology of Fringe, and from what I know there, most of those elements can be commented on by secondary sources to augment the primary-work discussion (some already are). Given that Lost was a much more popular show (at least in the first few seasons), as well as having a companion guide, I would be reasonably expect that more sources - about how the mythology elements were conceived and how they were received - should be doable- the article already has several. That said, the nom arguments amount to issues with cleanup, even if it has been sitting for several years, which is never a reason to delete an article. A merge might be possible, but I don't see where it could go (the main Lost page is too long for any more detail).  Note that I would expect WP:NOT to be considered for the overall article, but not necessarily for every single element in the mythos; currently the article is maybe a little heavy in plot over out-of-universe function but its nowhere close to a point I would consider deletion before cleanup. --M ASEM  (t) 20:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTPLOT. Anything relevant would be covered on the main page for the series or its related articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be worth mentioning that several works have been released by reputable publishing houses which extensively analyze the philosophy of Lost. These include Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons (already listed in the article's Further Reading) and Ultimate Lost and Philosophy: Think Together, Die Alone (ISBN 9780470632291), both published by Wiley-Blackwell.  Normally, it would be inappropriate to create a separate "mythology" or "philosophy" article about a TV series, but given the existence of book-length treatments about the philosophy/mythology of this show issued by a respected academic publishing house, it seems to me that Lost can be regarded as a special case.  Hence I regard the basic topic of the mythology/philosophy of Lost as having potential and sufficiently notable to merit a separate article.  I admit that I haven't read either book, so I don't know how closely their respective discussions parallel the material in the article.  I suspect though that these works take a high-level overview of themes in the series as a whole and compare/contrast them with themes in the major philosophical schools and religious trends such as gnosticism.  In contrast, the article as it currently stands primarily is a list of sci-fi elements found in Lost with descriptions of how they tie-in with the plot.  This largely (albeit in some greater detail) duplicates the main Lost article's discussion of the plot, so (WP:NOTPLOT) applies.  I would vote "keep" were I presented with a very differently written article that is largely devoted to an examination of Lost's mythology/philosophy in light of influences derived from various world mythological and philosophical traditions and teachings.  But I'm reluctant to vote "keep" for *this* article as it currently stands, which to my eye would need to be completely rewritten to do far more than just rehash elements of the plot. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The subject is a notable one, as Mike points out, there are sources out there that analyze the show in a pedantic way. This article could summarize that, but that's not what it is doing here.  Television articles with lots of references to specific episodes raise the red flag of WP:OR.  This article is mostly based on that.  The subject is notable but the current article needs to be reworked so that it is based off of reliable sources and is not a retelling of the plot. RadioFan (talk) 15:05, 30 January 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.