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) Dusti^*poke* 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epic (genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article violates WP:DICDEF and is a content fork. Besides the Dictionary.com definition, it provides a list of various genres called "epic". The only sentence worth keeping is the one that describes how the word "epic" can now be extended to cover almost anything (even real-life stories, as we are informed). The article does not discuss what all these "genres" across several art forms have in common. It does however cite an online dictionary: a "theme of grandeur and heroism". This article might be fixable, but since as of now it is entirely redundant to the disambiguation page Epic, it ought either to be deleted or else redirected. It might not be fixable, however, if no sources describe the existence of a single epic genre crossing several narrative art forms. It is not clear that any of the cited sources in the article do so: all that is shown is that the word has taken on a wider meaning than its original one, a fact that can be gleaned from a dictionary. (Paul Merchant's The Epic is concerned primarily with poetry.) Srnec (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a dictionary entry as there is no focus upon epic as a word - no etymology, grammar, spelling, &c. Paul Merchant's book discusses the concept across a variety of media, having a chapter Forms of the Modern Epic, which include the novel and theatre. Here are two more book-length treatments of the concept of the epic which span all mediums of expression: Epic: Form, Content, and History, Epic. The topic is therefore very notable. Andrew Davidson (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a dictionary entry, but it is based on a dictionary definition. It treats epic the way the dictionary treats "epic".
• I looked at Merchant's book, but it is primarily about poetry, as I said. The works you cite would make good sources for an article of this type. Too bad they are not used. The reason for deletion, as I tried to make clear, was that it is a content fork. It is merely a fancy disambiguation page. There is no use, when Wikipedia is over 10 years old, having a stub on epic as a genre which span all mediums of expression plus reality.
• To be clear: when I wrote that "no sources [might] describe the existence of a single epic genre crossing several narrative art forms", I was pointing out that it fails verifiability, because none of "the cited sources in the article do so". Even in the Turner work you cite, the author expends a lot of time defending his task and, on p. 17, begs "the reader's provisional assent to the classification, pending later analysis of the features shared by the [canonical] group [of representatives of the genre], exclusion of nonmembers of it, and confirmation of the category's organic necessity". The book barely mentions film at all. Srnec (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter if Merchant's book is "primarily about poetry", as long as it gives "substantial coverage" to other genres and/or to the epic in general. The chapter "Forms of the modern epic" sounds like it meets that (though I've not read it myself). Dricherby (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not enough that it give substantial coverage "to other genres and/or to the epic in general". It must give substantial coverage to the epic in general, since that is what the article is purportedly about. But a chapter title is hardly a reliable source for any claim. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not just a chapter title: much of the book is available on Google Books. I've now skim-read the parts of the chapter that are online. It gives brief mention to "epic" real-life situations and epic cinema and substantial coverage to epic novels (almost eight pages) and epic theatre (at least four), including comparison with epic poetry. This shows notability for a fairly broad section of "the epic". It also allows the epic in these various genres to be compared without resorting to synthesis. Dricherby (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources given by Andrew Davidson provide concrete evidence of what is obvious notability. All of the matters raised by the nominator are content issues and the quality of the current article is not a reason for deletion (and I disagree with the nominator's claims of dicdef and content fork). Since the term "epic" is used across several genres, it is useful to have an article that summarises the different kinds of epic and discusses differences and similarities between them, even though the article doens't do that yet. Dricherby (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I never argued that epic-as-a-genre-across-many-art-forms wasn't notable. I argued that the article as it stands covers no more territory than (a) the dictionary and (b) the disambiguation page and thus violates two policies, one of which is explicitly listed among the reasons for deletion. Is your last sentence an admission that the article we have is useless? Srnec (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the topic is notable, there is no reason to delete the article unless you're going to argue along the lines of WP:TNT, which I don't think is justified in this case. The present article makes a start at addressing the topic and, while it is not particularly good, it is not terrible and, no, I wouldn't describe it as useless. It is not a content fork of the disambiguation page because that is just a list of articles and has no content to fork; it's not a content fork of the various pages on different types of epic because it's an introductory summary of them. The article extends beyond a dictionary definition in its brief treatment of epic fantasy: it doesn't just define epic fantasy but begins to discuss the scope of works in that genre. The overriding factor here is that, if there are policy breaches (in my opinion, there are not; and I acknowledge your disagreement), they are not egregious and can be solved by ordinary editing. Dricherby (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I am arguing precisely along the lines of WP:TNT. But that a topic presented by a title is notable is no defence for the content of the article, which in this case is nothing but a list of (sub)genres and a dictionary definition.
• The article is a content fork because it disambiguates the word "epic" just like a disambiguation page, providing a definition of "epic" that is pulled from an online dictionary. The summary it provides is not much more than many disambiguation pages do provide. Does the coverage on the page resemble anything in any reliable source about epics-in-general? Or does it merely scavenge from other articles (i.e., content fork)?
• My argument for TNTing the thing is that there is no use for a stub of a broad concept article. Such a thing is almost by definition a disambiguation page with dictionary definition. Imagine if president were a stub. (I think it's almost worthless as is, and it's not a stub.) The article people want to keep is an article nobody has for years shown the least inclination to actually write and which we consequently still lack. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple reliable sources establish this as a notable topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of notability was not the reason given for deletion. Srnec (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not in violation of policy, rather needs improvement. Would like to see others have that opportunity. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's definitely a worthwhile topic to have on Wikipedia. Badger2424 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not a dictionary definition and is a notable topic. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of these last votes are arguments against the rationale put forward by the nominator. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend you're not the nominator. You're the only one arguing for deletion, so claiming to side with "the nominator" is at minimum misleading. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stubby but room for improvement. Article does provide a little information. Epic as a genre is a well-known concept with ample references provided above. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2013 (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.