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) sst✈ 03:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatica Theory of Story Structure[edit]

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

No independent sources - thinly veiled advertorial Philg88 ^♦talk 15:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While needs some editing, I don't think deserves deletion.--CaligirlTay89 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite a number of books about it. The article lacks in quality but that should not be reason for deletion. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 09:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took a look at the Google Book results and there actually aren't many books that actually talk about this topic - WP:GHITS is not a good argument to make for inclusion. Of the two books that bring up the topic, this is self-published and this is a study guide published by a company that appears to be self-published or at the very least, doesn't go through the type of editorial oversight that Wikipedia would require. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'm really not finding anything to suggest that this is notable enough for an article, as the only people that appear to be talking about it are the people who created the theory. Searching only under "Dramatica" isn't bringing up much other than false positives and references to the infamous Encyclopedia Dramatica site so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm finding some stuff slowly but surely - I found this which seems to mention the software at length but I can't really see the book beyond snapshots and what I can see isn't entirely enough to go on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding snippets here and there. Most of the coverage centers very heavily on the software so if this is kept it should be under just "Dramatica". Part of the difficulty here is that the coverage was predominantly written before publishing work online became popular, so not all of it will be accessible via the Internet. What I am seeing does give off the impression that it was fairly well thought of during its heyday in the late 90s and early 2000s. The problem that I'm running into is that some of it is used to describe general concepts but doesn't really state the theory by name, which complicates matters as saying that a paper is absolutely talking about the theory could be construed as original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and renamed to Dramatica. I've cleaned out the dross, although I don't mind parts being re-added if they can be sourced. What I was able to find was fairly minimal, but it gives off the impression that this software (and the coverage is very heavily oriented on the software) was considered to be quite influential in its area. I'd say that this should be moved without a redirect since the term "Dramatica" seems to be the most prevalent name for this - the "theory of story" is fairly superfluous. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 24 February 2016 (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.