Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharma Initiative

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. Seems like good evidence of notability was unearthed during the course of the discussion. There are some mixed arguments on whether a merger would be appropriate; I think these can be hashed out in a dedicated merge discussion is required, but as far as AFD is concerned there is no consensus for a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma Initiative (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)

This seems like another very extensive and well written articl that's pure WP:PLOT. There are some sources out there but they do not seem to go beyond plot summaries, or unreliable fan speculation. The best I see are articles like [1] and I don't think this is the type of souce that is sufficient. Ditto for [2], please note this is effectively just a plot summary with little analysis. Please consider that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) advises "Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details" and this article very clearly fails this. Thoughts? PS. Always open to WP:SOFTDELETE ideas. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative - it's hard to imagine this ever getting outright deleted since the name is a viable search term, but it appears to be WP:ALLPLOT and more fit for FANDOM than Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative per Zxcvbnm. Without having looked for sources myself, I suspect there probably is enough coverage in reliable sources that could result in a standalone article that's not entirely plot summary/fancruft. Obviously that article would look a lot different than the current one and would require a pretty significant overhaul, and whether that could ever happen or not remains to be seen, but for not the redirect seems appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 16:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Striking my original vote because the sources Toughpigs has unearthed make a compelling case. It appears not only that the article could easily be expanded and improved with content beyond in-universe and plot summary, but also that the Dharma Initiative embodies some of the most important themes of the series. And as he says, notability isn't determined by the state of the article but rather by the existence of the sources. It would be great to see someone with an interest in this topic expand this article, and the "Further reading" section that Toughpigs has established will make it that much easier now... — Hunter Kahn 18:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative. There is a lot of information here, but it is probably best suited for Lostpedia. Redirecting is the best option. Rhino131 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are a number of media-criticism sources that specifically talk about the Dharma Initiative as key to central themes of the show:
  • "Research Ethics and the Dharma Initiative" by Deborah R. Barnbaum, in Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons, Blackwell Publishing (2008)
  • "Strangers in a Strange Land: Evading Environmental Apocalypse Through Human Choice" by Carlos A. Tairn and Stacey K. Sowards, in Looking for Lost: Critical Essays on the Enigmatic Series, McFarland & Company (2011)
  • "Lost Spirituality" in Unlocking the Meaning of Lost: An Unauthorized Guide by Lynette Porter & David Lavery, Sourcebooks (2006)
  • Lost: It Only Ends Once by Robert Dougherty, iUniverse (2010)

WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not determine the notability of the subject. According to WP:NEXIST, the fact that reliable sources exist makes the topic notable. People who are concerned about the quality of the writing on this article should make edits to improve it. I'll put these sources on the article in a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article can use these resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Smerge to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative. It's an important plot element, yes, but the current article goes into way too much plot (WP:NOTPLOT) to really need a stand-alone article. Better re-start from within the Mythology article per WP:TNT and only go the WP:SPINOUT route when someone is willing to develop it per WP:WAF/the available real-world sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Simply meets notability. Extensive sources and references in other media. The Dharma Initiative is not part of the Mythology of Lost, so redirecting doesn't make sense. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lost is not just any show and the Dharma Initiative is not just any part of it. And per Toughpigs, there is a lot more that can be said about this particular subject. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - There is very little value in the current article, and there is plenty of space in the Mythology article to explore the topic. I don't see any reason it would need to be split out from the above sources. TTN (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2020 (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.