Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of narrative forms


 * 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.  So Why  13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List of narrative forms

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:HEY with the editing that happened subsequent to my previous vote. --Cyber cobra (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Delete Also runs afoul of DICDEF at present. --Cyber cobra  (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is pretty much original research and I could cite it, but if the author won't even bother delete it and make another article. Its sad, I like this sort of thing. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. OR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR (unsourced original research). It has a secondary problem in that "narrative forms" isn't a clearly defined term so any purported list of narrative forms can never be either (a) conclusive or (b) verifiable. - DustFormsWords (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. The introduction to A theory of narrative by F. K. Stanzel (ISBN 9780521310635) discusses the precise topic of listing and classifying narrative forms - and that's just page 1 of the first book that I've looked at in researching this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that information needs to be in the article; at the moment it cites that source but doesn't make any claim to be using a definition from it, or from any other source, for that matter. (I say that as statement, not criticism - thanks for checking out a book I don't have personal access to.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like many of our other lists, the linked articles serve to explain themselves. I believe it's adequately sourced and a valid article. • Anakin (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but it could use some expansion and further sourcing. I added a source to the article which shows that the subject of the list has been reproduced and commented-upon in reliable sources. This source contains many of the terms in the list which takes away the original research argument. "Narrative forms" in itself isn't a contentious definition so there shouldn't be issues with defining what may or may not be a narrative form. Lastly, this is obviously beyond a dictionary definition as it contains much more than a basic definition, it is an encyclopedic investigation into the subject.  A dictionary definition would be thrown back at the subject, such as "A list of narrative forms is a list containing only narrative forms", not "this is a list of narrative forms: form 1, form 2, etc.  Them  From  Space  05:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relist comment: A source was (finally) added to the article at 05:08, 1 October 2009. More comment is required.  Sandstein   17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. For the sake of completeness I would like to clarify that a source was added at 21:56 on 30 September, the day after this discussion was started - and that source does more than the usual sources about the underlying topic that we get for lists, in that it is about the specific topic of listing narrative forms. I don't understand why this merits a paranthetical "finally". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, sorry. There was a prior ref for the claim about the 50s being the Linnean period for this sort of classification.  Sandstein   08:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems like an acceptable navigational list, personally I prefer navigational templates (like Template:Fiction writing) but others find them useful. Guest9999 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, OR concerns are non-existent: the entries'descriptions are simply summaries of the linked article's contents. It is more than valid and useful for navigation. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sole Soul (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks good now. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.