Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tritagonist

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tritagonist[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: This article's content is essentially summed up by a single sentence and so could enjoy a Wiktionary but not a Wikipedia entry. No sources are even cited and it currently falls under a single category. The article is constantly being removed and added back to the Narrative template ("Template:Narrative") perhaps as an aesthetically pleasing follow-up to protagonist and deuteragonist, but without being a major topic worthy of placement on such a template. Rarely, if ever, does the term seem to be used on other Wikipedia articles under the category of "drama." Little does the article seem to be have ever been expanded upon by editors, leading one to conclude it is not a truly meaningful article. Wolfdog (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search at Google Books (3,330 hits) shows that this concept, its history, and its usage, have been discussed in numerous works of literary analysis. For example, [1][2][3][4] And here is one that expands the concept to Indian prose.[5]That the topic hasn't yet been expanded on Wikipedia is not a reason to delete it: this isn't a BLP, WP:NODEADLINE still applies.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. Definitely an encyclopedic subject with numerous sources as shown by Arxiloxos ^walk victor falk^talk 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources of Arxiloxos. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have made a modest improvement of the article to add sources, and to illustrate how the article can be expanded out beyond a dictionary definition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep new sources are convincing this is more than just a dictionary concept 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2011 (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.