The result was redirect to Snow Crash#Distributed republics. Editors may merge content from history. Except for Newimpartial, all agree that this should be covered in the context of Snow Crash, if at all. Sandstein 21:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
It seems to be a concept used in a single science-fiction book, I don't see how it deserves a separate article on Wikipedia, considering there isn't even much written here about it. BeŻet ( talk) 14:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep - discussed in reliable, independent secondary sources cited in the article. Meets WP:GNG. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
In Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, the concept of a "distributed republic" is introduced; it means a "nation" where citizens and physical assets are scattered around the globe, often changing, in many loosely connected anarchist communities. The concept is adapted, and acknowledged, in the online, anarchist "Hacker Republic" in the Millennium novels, where Lisbeth Salander is a "citizen".The only search result for "distributed republic" I got in Neo-Victorianism and the Memory of Empire was
America is conspicuously absent in the novel, recalled only in the hegemonic presence of "Neo-Victorian" culture, code for the technologically and culturally dominant "New Atlantis" tribe or "phyle" (ibid., p.33) that co-exists among others like the dominant Nipponese and Hindustanis but also the "Ashantis, Kurds, Armenians, Navajos, Tibetans, Senderos, Mormons, Jesuits, Lapps, Pathans, Tutsis, the First Distributed Republic and its innumerable offshoots, Heartlanders, Irish, and one or two local CryptNet cells" (ibid., p490)., but that was on page 132–133 ( https://books.google.com/books?id=d2Xv0n40fE0C&pg=PT133), not on the indicated page 124. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
In fact The Diamond Age is chock full of distributed systems: not only the global communications media Net but organizations like CryptNet and the "gestalt society" of the Drummers, the peasant society of Chinese rice-farmers, the First Distributed Republic that springs up in the West of Carl Hollywood's grandfather, and Dramatis Personae, the autonomously intelligent play of performer/spectators.Remediated Readers: Gender and Literacy in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age contains the collocation "distributed republic" precisely zero times. I want you to explain how you think these sources demonstrate notability for the topic of distributed republics. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
In both Snow Crash and his later book, Diamond Age, Stephenson describes distributed republics—fluid governments that range across the world, occupying many various places at various times and following wherever their citizen-customers go. He presents these as for-profit enterprises, such as Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong franchise, or as shattered remnants of former nation-states, such as the leftover bits of the former United States, now known as Fedland. Stephenson portrays the former as tough but fair and, perhaps more important, good value for the crypto-buck. He depicts the latter as a pathetically shrunken relic, psychotically obsessed with false order.TompaDompa ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
whole chaptersto establish Notability. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not only I am trying to dispute that there is significant coverage of the topic, but also trying to argue that the topic does not deserve a separate article. The coverage you are mentioning seems to me to only present superficial descriptions of the concept, and does not go any further (based on the fragments that TompaDompa kindly shared). BeŻet ( talk) 22:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
superdicial, absolutely suffice as article sources. Also, you have not made any argument that WP:NOT applies here, which is the only example given in the "presumed" clause for why a GNG pass should not result in an article being retained. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
discussed, rather than
described, to have a standone article. That isn't the way WP:N (or WP:SIGCOV) works. Also, the fact that this article's topic is discussed in relation to two different novels is actually a sleeper !keep argument. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
trivial mention, but a sentence description of what something is, is not a "trivial mention". It is also clearly stated that a subject need not me the main topic of the source to count as significant coverage. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
a couple paragraphs. Since the purpose of WP:N is not to gauge importance but to determine whether a reliably sourced article can be written, it seems that descriptive sentences should be fine. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.I think a one- or two-sentence description of a fictional concept is a trivial mention; the coverage is brief and not in-depth. Discussed vs. described is my way of explaining why I don't think it's significant coverage. And if you compare what the article currently says vs. what the cited sources say, you'll see that original research was indeed needed to extract that content. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The distributed republic is a concept of fluid republic consisting of land and citizens scattered around the globe, changing far more frequently than conventional nation-states. In fiction, many of these republics are corporate entities, while others are more loosely connected anarchist communities. The concept is rooted in the anarcho-capitalist, dystopian cyberpunk subgenre of science fiction, and was used extensively by novelist Neal Stephenson in his books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age.None of this can be attributed to Neo-Victorianism and the Memory of Empire, one of the two sources cited.
citizens scattered around the globeand
loosely connected anarchist communitiescan be attributed to The Tattooed Girl: The Enigma of Stieg Larsson and the Secrets Behind the Most Compelling Thrillers of Our Time, the other cited source. So could
used by novelist Neal Stephenson in his books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, but not the present
used extensively [...].
fluid republiccannot be attributed to that source.
consisting of landcannot.
changing far more frequently than conventional nation-statescannot.
many of these republics are corporate entitiescannot.
The concept is rooted in the anarcho-capitalist, dystopian cyberpunk subgenre of science fictioncannot.
fluid, but not
fluid republic, can be attributed to The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought, a source which is not cited on the article (more about that later).
consisting of landis dubious.
changing far more frequently than conventional nation-statescannot be attributed to that source.
The concept is rooted in the anarcho-capitalist, dystopian cyberpunk subgenre of science fictioncannot.The phrasing
many of these republics are corporate entities, while others are more loosely connected anarchist communitiesis an amalgamation of what two different sources—only one of which is actually cited—in a way that misrepresents both. One says
loosely connected anarchist communitieswith no other type, and the other says
for-profit enterprises [...] or [...] shattered remnants of former nation-states.The entire phrasing of the article (
The distributed republic is [...]. In fiction, [...]. The concept [...] was used extensively by novelist Neal Stephenson in his books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age.) implies that this is a real-world phenomenon which has also been used in fiction, in particular by Stephenson. What the sources say is that this is a fictional concept Stephenson uses in his works.The reason for all of this is, of course, that the sources were added in 2015 to text that had mostly been added back in 2006 ("Snow Crash" was added in 2007, " cypherpunk" was changed to " cyberpunk" in 2011, and "in fiction" was added in 2014). This is a classic case of adding a bunch of WP:Original research to an article and then looking for sources to verify it. Here, it was partially successful. It should of course still never have happened. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
getting a bit fed upseems to have led to you making mistakes: did you read The Diamond Girl reference carefully? The whole point of that discussion is that the concept of the distributed republic is acknowledged and adapted in the Millenium novels by Steig Larsson. In other words, it is not only
used by Neal Stevenson, as you baldly stated above.
a fictional concept Stephenson uses in his works(my exact words above), which is true. I also didn't say that it was also used by Stieg Larsson, because what the source says is that it was
adapted, and acknowledgedby Larsson. I chose my words rather carefully, you see. You're making it a bit difficult to WP:AGF here—first you lie about what the sources say, and then you claim I said something I didn't.I don't agree that
the question for AfD is whether Reliable Sources address the topic and whether it is encyclopaedic—that's you shifting the goalposts. The question for this AfD is whether this stand-alone article should be kept, deleted, merged, redirected, draftified, or some other WP:Alternative to deletion. That's not the same thing. You need to make a case that this warrants a stand-alone article (which would necessitate meeting WP:GNG), not that this is something which should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
lyingjust because I made (and admitted) a mistake. That's a WP:CIVIL violation.
Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear.That's basically what I'm proposing, except the article was and is in such a poor state that I rewrote it from scratch at the target article instead. WP:PAGEDECIDE says
Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.Even for topics that are notable, a stand-alone article is not necessarily the best solution. As an example, I'm fairly sure that the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings films would technically meet WP:GNG, but I also think forking would be a bad idea there.I didn't get the impression that you admitted making a mistake (is this the edit you're referring to?), but you obviously have now, so I apologize.The point I was making mostly had to do with the phrasing making it sound like a real-world concept (which it isn't), and to a lesser extent about how the article de-emphasizes Stephenson compared to the sources; I was originally going to write that the sources say Stephenson originated the concept (which it seems he did), but they don't really say that so I changed the phrasing. That Larsson
adapted, and acknowledgedthe concept didn't seem germane to that. If I understand you correctly, you think it's relevant for different reasons, since you think it demonstrates that the concept should have a stand-alone article. I disagree, because I don't think the coverage is sufficiently in-depth to be considered WP:Significant coverage regardless. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, your second talk quote - which observes that it is sometimes better to cover notable topics on part of a broader topic - is actually one I heartily agree with. But it does not apply to a fictional element the RS on which connect directly to two novels by one writer and several by another. 02:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The political structure and the new social order outlined in The Diamond Age derive from Stephenson's previous novel Snow Crash, which presents a geopolitical division consisting of a set of colonies identified as 'Burbclaves' (suburban enclaves) and Franchulates (political franchises), both assembled by peoples with common interests. In contrast, in The Diamond Age the Earth is organized in diverse city-states pertaining to different 'distributed republics' whose territories are scattered around the planet. This enables Stephenson to examine various aspects of our current globalized order, its new economic alternatives (like post-capitalism) and other issues such as the success and failure of ancient social philosophies that, in the novel, are labeled as New Victorianism or New Confucianism.In other words, the concept of distributed republics is
briefly described for context, as TTN put it. I wish we had more in-depth sources providing WP:Significant coverage for the topic so we could write a proper stand-alone article discussing it in detail, but my standards for what I consider WP:Significant coverage are higher than this. TompaDompa ( talk) 03:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.There does not exist any general consensus about where to draw the line, so we judge it case-by-case. Some editors focus on length of coverage; a cut-off of WP:One hundred words has been suggested. Some editors focus on breadth of coverage. Some editors focus on depth of coverage. You previously stated that
the purpose of WP:N is not to gauge importance but to determine whether a reliably sourced article can be written, it seems that descriptive sentences should be fine, which is fairly similar to the ideas expressed in the essay Wikipedia:Significant coverage not required. That's certainly one possible way to view it, but it doesn't enjoy community consensus the way you seem to imply. I don't think having one or two sentences describing the concept of distributed republics for context in order to discuss something different is significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail, but you are of course allowed to disagree. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)