Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byronic hero

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 snowball keep. the wub "?!" 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Byronic hero

Byronic hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page is does not have many sources such as heroes who fit this quality type of hero, there have only been five or less articles on the subject.Also the term Byronic Hero is basically an ancient term of today's term anti-hero with similar concepts to today's type of anti-hero I ask you kindly to please consider my proposal of deleting this article. Tylerwade123 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A notable concept; there are at least two books entirely about Byronic heroes. There might be some overlap between Byronic heroes other kinds of "flawed heroes", but that doesn't mean we should delete this entry entirely, since the exact term is commonly used in literary studies. Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not the amount of sources that matter. It's how detailed they are and the quality. Zagalejo's research indicates there's plenty of material there to use. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As I understand it, "Hero" is in refference not to the character being a "good guy," but rather being a main character in gereral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.245.34 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Actually, the article is well-sourced for its size. As Zagalejo shows, more sources could be added and it is not a duplicate of antihero. Several examples of Byronic heroes are given in the acticle, there is no need to turn it into an example farm. The nominator is also incorrect about the number of articles which link to this one,[1] though I suspect they should be checked for original research. Edward321 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I was made to study byronic heros way back in AP English, if it is good enough for that cirriculum, it should be good enough for WP. -Verdatum (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep well established concept as shown by the references. I point at that older critical views not currently in vogue are still notable. Notability is permanent & thats one of the the basic premises behind any encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2008 (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.