The result was delete. Without sufficient reliable sources, it cannot be demonstrated that this glossary is not original research. The sources given here appear to be about the series, not necessarily about the terms that appear in this article. The arguments to keep were not convincing ( WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF). I would be willing to restore the article for the purpose of merging some of its content to another article, or merging all of its content to another wiki, if desired. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC) reply
An in-universe glossary for a two-book novel series. Problematic per WP:NOR (reads like original research), WP:NOT#PLOT (article is only plot summary) and WP:N (the topic of the terminology of this series is not, as such, the subject of coverage in reliable sources). Such content is better suited to fan wikis than to Wikipedia. Sandstein 06:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply
(subhead added to ease editing)
I'll add to this list (and the article) as time permits (I'm out of spare time now) -- but it's fair to say that there are many RS discussions of the Rajaniemi novels that haven't yet been used here. And it is very likely that academic discussions of the the Jean le Flambeur series will be forthcoming. This is an interesting and challenging series of books, and our glossary is a worthwhile and encyclopedic attempt to help readers to understand the books. Let's not cut off a promising article with a premature deletion. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC) reply
"While in most works of imaginative fiction, a glossary of terms is an indulgence, here one is almost a necessity. (And where the book itself fails you, Wikipedia comes to the rescue.)" -- Thomas M. Wagner at Sfreviews.net
"....the one thing I wish that The Quantum Thief really had is a glossary. ... The helpful wikipedia entry Glossary of Terms in the Quantum Thief is useful, though a part of me wants to recommend a “pure” reading experience." -- Review: The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi
"I found this on wikipedia - and think it might be very helpful whilst reading! Glossary of terms in Quantum Thief" -- Useful links for the Quantum Thief
Plus another 50+ mentions of the glossary online: Google search, mostly positive. There were a few grumbles about spoilers. But we seem to be filling a need. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that the core of the argument for deleting this glossary is verifiability: WP:No original research. We've already added a substantial number of new secondary sources, and will add more as we find them -- but it seems unlikely we will be able to cite all of the material in the glossary. Some pruning seems likely to be needed -- but needs to be done with care, as I've seen very few actual errors. What we are likely to have, instead, is some (hopefully small) percentage of correct, but unreferenced, content.
A case could be made that, in an ideal world, it would have been better to publish this glossary somewhere else. But it was written and published here, starting back in 2010. Many readers have found it useful, links to the article are widely available, and a lot of future readers will be inconvenienced and annoyed if they click the published links and find the article deleted. Deletion won't serve our core purpose of improving the encyclopedia -- see the essays at WP:Purpose and Wikipedia:Does deletion help.
So it seems to me that the best approach is to improve the article, bring it as close as we can to the ideals of WP:V (and all of the WP:Five pillars) -- and to recognize that, in the real world, no article is perfect. If this glossary serves the greater good of informing and educating our users -- well, that's why we have WP:Ignore all rules. We do need to remember what we're trying to accomplish here (see Wikipedia:The rules are principles), and to always WP:Use common sense. Best regards, Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Without sufficient reliable sources, it cannot be demonstrated that this glossary is not original research. The sources given here appear to be about the series, not necessarily about the terms that appear in this article. The arguments to keep were not convincing ( WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF). I would be willing to restore the article for the purpose of merging some of its content to another article, or merging all of its content to another wiki, if desired. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC) reply
An in-universe glossary for a two-book novel series. Problematic per WP:NOR (reads like original research), WP:NOT#PLOT (article is only plot summary) and WP:N (the topic of the terminology of this series is not, as such, the subject of coverage in reliable sources). Such content is better suited to fan wikis than to Wikipedia. Sandstein 06:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply
(subhead added to ease editing)
I'll add to this list (and the article) as time permits (I'm out of spare time now) -- but it's fair to say that there are many RS discussions of the Rajaniemi novels that haven't yet been used here. And it is very likely that academic discussions of the the Jean le Flambeur series will be forthcoming. This is an interesting and challenging series of books, and our glossary is a worthwhile and encyclopedic attempt to help readers to understand the books. Let's not cut off a promising article with a premature deletion. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC) reply
"While in most works of imaginative fiction, a glossary of terms is an indulgence, here one is almost a necessity. (And where the book itself fails you, Wikipedia comes to the rescue.)" -- Thomas M. Wagner at Sfreviews.net
"....the one thing I wish that The Quantum Thief really had is a glossary. ... The helpful wikipedia entry Glossary of Terms in the Quantum Thief is useful, though a part of me wants to recommend a “pure” reading experience." -- Review: The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi
"I found this on wikipedia - and think it might be very helpful whilst reading! Glossary of terms in Quantum Thief" -- Useful links for the Quantum Thief
Plus another 50+ mentions of the glossary online: Google search, mostly positive. There were a few grumbles about spoilers. But we seem to be filling a need. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that the core of the argument for deleting this glossary is verifiability: WP:No original research. We've already added a substantial number of new secondary sources, and will add more as we find them -- but it seems unlikely we will be able to cite all of the material in the glossary. Some pruning seems likely to be needed -- but needs to be done with care, as I've seen very few actual errors. What we are likely to have, instead, is some (hopefully small) percentage of correct, but unreferenced, content.
A case could be made that, in an ideal world, it would have been better to publish this glossary somewhere else. But it was written and published here, starting back in 2010. Many readers have found it useful, links to the article are widely available, and a lot of future readers will be inconvenienced and annoyed if they click the published links and find the article deleted. Deletion won't serve our core purpose of improving the encyclopedia -- see the essays at WP:Purpose and Wikipedia:Does deletion help.
So it seems to me that the best approach is to improve the article, bring it as close as we can to the ideals of WP:V (and all of the WP:Five pillars) -- and to recognize that, in the real world, no article is perfect. If this glossary serves the greater good of informing and educating our users -- well, that's why we have WP:Ignore all rules. We do need to remember what we're trying to accomplish here (see Wikipedia:The rules are principles), and to always WP:Use common sense. Best regards, Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply