Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sublimed

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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sublimed

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a minor plot element in a science fiction novel series. On its own, it is not notable because it lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:N). The content should not be merged anywhere because it is unsourced, reads like original research (WP:OR) and consists only of excessively detailed plot summary written in an in-universe style (see WP:WAF). Sandstein 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed to find reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I attempted a rescue on this article and did not do particularly well (being especially frustrated by limited previews and paywalls on this one). I think it's keepable if we're inclined to be a little generous with notability, but I won't cry if it's deleted. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people inclined to take a practical rather than RULES AS WRITTEN RAAAR approach may note that Banks's upcoming The Hydrogen Sonata apparently focuses on the Sublimed as its primary topic, so, given the critical and scholarly attention Banks routinely receives, notability-establishing coverage is likely to follow on its release. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probable merge with The Culture. Banks's novels are among the most important of recent science fiction novels, and are discussed in academic contexts, but this article is purely concerned with recounting material in the novels, rather than providing the sort of deeper analysis you would expect from academic study. Wikipedia is supposed to summarise critical analyses and interpretations of literary works, and information on their creation and reception, not just recount their plots (WP:NOTPLOT). Therefore treating his whole universe in a single article is probably better unless significant 3rd-party sources analysing this topic can be found. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOT PLOT refers to the overall coverage of fiction, not how we choose to divide it into separate articles--the attempts to use the GNG can produce ludicrous results in either direction. For a fictional universe as complex as this separate articles are advisable, because of the difficulty of presenting it clearly in a single article--it is necessary to use summary style to prevent overwhelming the main article with detail. If merged, the entire contents should be merged--though in any case the main article needs a better and mores conspicuous summary than seems to be there at present. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:23, 7 September 2012 (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.