Deletion of Mythology of Lost

Comment: It may be worth mentioning that several works have been released by reputable publishing houses which extensively analyze the philosophy of Lost.  These include ''Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons'' (already listed in the article's Further Reading) and ''Ultimate Lost and Philosophy: Think Together, Die Alone'' ({{ISBN|9780470632291}}), both published by Wiley-Blackwell.  Normally, it would be inappropriate to create a separate "mythology" or "philosophy" article about a TV series, but given the existence of book-length treatments about the philosophy/mythology of this show issued by a respected academic publishing house, it seems to me that Lost can be regarded as a special case.  Hence I regard the basic topic of the mythology/philosophy of Lost as |having potential and sufficiently notable to merit a separate article.  I admit that I haven't read either book, so I don't know how closely their respective discussions parallel the material in the article.  I suspect though that these works take a high-level overview of themes in the series as a whole and compare/contrast them with themes in the major philosophical schools and religious trends such as gnosticism.  In contrast, the article as it currently stands primarily is a list of sci-fi elements found in Lost with descriptions of how they tie-in with the plot.  This largely (albeit in some greater detail) duplicates the main Lost article's discussion of the plot, so () applies.  I would vote "keep" were I presented with a very differently written article that is largely devoted to an examination of Lost's mythology/philosophy in light of influences derived from various world mythological and philosophical traditions and teachings.  But I'm reluctant to vote "keep" for *this* article as it currently stands, which to my eye would need to be completely rewritten to do far more than just rehash elements of the plot
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL||WP:NOTPLOT)

Comment: Per . Anything relevant would be covered on the main page for the series or its related articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)

Comment: The subject is a notable one, as Mike points out, there are sources out there that analyze the show in a pedantic way.  This article could summarize that, but that's not what it is doing here.  Television articles with lots of references to specific episodes raise the red flag of .  This article is mostly based on that.  The subject is notable but the current article needs to be reworked so that it is based off of reliable sources and is not a retelling of the plot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)