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 Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Dark Materials terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is very fan-crufty, and a person who has not read the books would not need to know all of these phrases to get an understanding of them. Also, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This has great information for people wanting to learn about the book and the terms used within it. I do not think this should be deleted just because there is a controversy on the subject. User:chatvite 16:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.12.29.4 (talk) [reply]
• Delete, the guy spend a lot of time creating his universe, and the article feeds off his creativity. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You DO realize this is not about a character? Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possibly fake, unquestionably cruft, plot summary, and non notable, also this is not a dictionary of fake terms Pilotbob 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how can it be both fake and plot summary? you DO know what this article is about? DGG (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as cruft.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article would be useful for people who want to know what, say, coal-silk is. 66.234.40.9 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why would anyone but a fan of the book want to know? Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyone who has read the books--many more have read them than are fans who know and recognize the details--the fans write these articles for the rest of us, not for themselves. that's why it belongs here.A specialist wiki would be expected to have a detailed article on each. And it's also for anyone who has seen or heard a discussion of them using these special meanings and evocative almost-English terms. This is what an encyclopedia is for--it's clearer as a list this way than any other way of presenting it. DGG (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very useful for people who want to know these terms and this is ther only place other than the books where you could find out these words. Bernstein2291 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing to be debated is the sources, or the lack thereof, demonstrating real world notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Even if it IS useful, we need sources. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sourceable from the many reviews and discussions--but it will be necessary to do so, for it is not obvious from the text iteself. DGG (talk)
• Merge. Into His Dark Materials. A separate article is unnecessary. If merged, much more work will be needed to verify the definitions, etc, using appropriate citations. It will also need to be wikified. If merge is not possible, then delete keep.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed default action. So long as the article is wikified and gains appropriate verification via citations.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Working on it a bit at a time! Feel free to go to the talk page if you have any ideas...(Constructive critisism is AWESOME!) SaturnMavi 63.97.219.197 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's useful for readers of the books and presumably now also for viewers of the film; handy & of encyclopedic value to be able to find this from the nav template. Many terms are self-evident and easily linked e.g. anbaric & chocolatl, but some should have sources added. Rename as List of terms in His Dark Materials. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact: Strong Keep. The genius of Wikipedia comes out in a page like this. Someone comes here to check a word in fiction, and they end up discovering science, geography and history just a click away (amber/electric, Cathay, Lascar...). Keep - this goes beyond fancruft and clearly has educational value. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am part way through reading the books, and searched on a term. This article satisfied exactly what I wanted to know. The claim "not notable" is clearly bogus, as the books are now a major motion picture, and subject to a national boycott by Catholics. It certainly is notable. I have no opinion on the Merge. idea, and don't really care, as long as this content is available in the Wikipedia. --Crispincowan (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge There are a lot of details in Lyra's universe that escape many readers the first time around. I had assumed that coal-silk was nylon, but with this article as a starting point, I was able to verify my suspicions using other sources. I have no wiki account at the moment (I lurk while I'm at work) but I do feel invested in this article and have been making slight corrections and clarifications that link to other articles in Wikipedia. (New Denmark, Country of Texas...) I don't know if it makes a difference but I'd be willing to maintain this article either in its current state or if it's merged into the main His Dark Materials article. SaturnMavi 63.97.219.197 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge I just checked some of the Narnia entries, Lord of the Rings entries, and Harry Potter entries, and they have similar types of information with no controversy. In terms of fairness, there is no reason this information should be suppressed. The formatting, presentation, and exact page structure are negotiable. --Boris Doris 01:23, 8 December 2007 (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.