267:
defenders are really interested in preserving this in some manner, they could make sure each novel listed states the novels pov in its article, and create categories for each pov type: in addition to
Category:Point of view, have Category:First person narrative novels, second person narrative, etc. we already have Category:Fiction with unreliable narrators, which is a good category in this vein. then they could build up article lists within the categories. lots of work, but i really see that as the only way to do this. this article is essentially a teaching guide for a class, not an encyclopedia article. The main defender of this article, TheEditrix2, admits he wrote it to help teach writers, and his user page doesnt exactly facilitate cooperation on articles. really, thats just rude!
461:
profile is "rude" (c.f. MercuryWoodRose's irrelevent assessment of me personality, above) is that I tired of warring over nonsense. I shall now retire to a corner and weep because once again, my well intended efforts to contribute useful educational information have been poo'ed upon. And why? Is
Knowledge (XXG) running short on server space? Is the Internet about to overrun its bandwidth? Leaving it alone would do NO harm, and deleting will make Knowledge (XXG) a slightly less helpful (and a less kind) place. But there you go. I shall leave, again, for an extended period of time to tend to my disapointment in the human race. Sigh. --
423:. The problem with making an entire list is that every work of fiction ever written would fall into one of the categories on the list. Even if the list could be limited to a handful of representative examples for each type of narration, it's unlikely that one could find a representative sample of books that are so well-known that the mere mention of the title is enough to be educational. It's better that examples like
390:. The purpose of Knowledge (XXG) is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Besides, it seems that the list's educational value is inversely proportional to the list's size. If properly maintained, it'll have to house thousands, if not tens of thousands, of entries, and lists of this size are neither educational nor
480:
That's very poignant. But who said that the information couldn't be contributed to
Knowledge (XXG)? The debate is over whether it ought to be in a separate article all its own. There are plenty of existing articles where these examples could be added. The main thing to remember is that if one is
366:
because it serves an educational purpose. Plese read talk page for explanation of its educational value. Numerous of my editing clients have been sent to the page, as have my teenaged writing students, kids who didn't otherwise grasp the fine differences between various literary POVs. The POV page
194:
Unnecessary list attempting to organize novels by "point of view", which is completely unsourced personal views of what constitutes a "well known example" (per the lead). Well-known to who? What source says these are the best novels for each point-of-view and only these specific ones? The scope is
460:
I don't wish to pout or argue. But to those who gleefully join in AFDs, may I just point out how discouraging it is to contributors when their serious efforts to contribute useful information to
Knowledge (XXG) are dismissed and deleted on specious interpretations of obscure rules? The reason my
266:
this is an impossible to maintain article. the name of the article demands that it be a list of all notable novels sorted by point of view. thats not an appropriate article subject. examples of novels with certain pov's could be listed in the articles on various povs. however, if the articles
481:
going to create a new article, then there are basic rules to follow, the main ones being to list one's sources of information and to avoid "original synthesis". The rules are less strict when it comes to adding to articles that are already in place.
163:
157:
286:
118:
91:
86:
95:
78:
123:
312:
511:
340:
as the subject is too broad to be manageable since it would include every novel we have. The category system works much better for this type of organization.
195:
far too broad for any kind of valid list, and one cannot just randomly pick novels to say "here are examples of this kind or that kind" of POV.
178:
145:
352:
220:
17:
523:
490:
467:
452:
403:
373:
358:
327:
301:
276:
258:
224:
60:
139:
440:
507:
135:
82:
415:
I tend to agree with TheEditrix that it's helpful to have illustrations of the different types of narrative described in
538:
185:
36:
74:
66:
416:
242:
196:
207:, and has apparently its need to exist has disputed a few times on its talk page, but no AfD or PROD was done. --
272:
537:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
387:
151:
347:
214:
249:
are extremely popular among writers, the list is simply too broad in scope to be useful or maintainable. —
436:
246:
208:
268:
519:
486:
448:
171:
391:
383:
238:
342:
337:
234:
399:
323:
297:
254:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
204:
463:
435:, etc. be part of the parent article, and that longer lists should be part of spinoffs like
369:
200:
199:
already covers the basics of the actual topic of point of view. This list appears to fail
515:
482:
444:
51:
395:
319:
293:
250:
112:
48:. As has been said, consider doing this as a category system instead.
531:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
108:
104:
100:
170:
184:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
541:). No further edits should be made to this page.
512:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiproject Books/Lists of books
287:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
313:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
307:
281:
367:simply doesn't serve the same purpose. --
311:: This debate has been included in the
285:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
508:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiproject Books
510:and expanded as a complement to
441:Third person limited omniscient
75:List of novels by point of view
67:List of novels by point of view
1:
506:maybe this could be moved to
419:. Some examples should be
558:
524:01:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
491:13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
468:15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
453:13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
417:point of view (literature)
404:12:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
374:05:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
359:00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
328:00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
302:00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
277:20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
259:18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
225:17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
197:Point of view (literature)
61:04:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
534:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
437:First-person narrative
247:first-person narrative
429:To Kill a Mockingbird
241:. Considering that
433:Gone With the Wind
425:Catcher in the Rye
44:The result was
330:
316:
304:
290:
59:
549:
536:
466:
372:
355:
350:
345:
317:
291:
211:
189:
188:
174:
126:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
557:
556:
552:
551:
550:
548:
547:
546:
545:
539:deletion review
532:
462:
421:in that article
368:
353:
348:
343:
269:Mercurywoodrose
209:
131:
122:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
555:
553:
544:
543:
527:
526:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
471:
470:
455:
409:
408:
407:
406:
388:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
382:Please recall
377:
376:
361:
331:
305:
279:
261:
192:
191:
128:
124:AfD statistics
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
554:
542:
540:
535:
529:
528:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
501:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
469:
465:
459:
456:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
410:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
371:
365:
362:
360:
357:
356:
351:
346:
339:
335:
332:
329:
325:
321:
314:
310:
306:
303:
299:
295:
288:
284:
280:
278:
274:
270:
265:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:methods like
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
206:
202:
198:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
533:
530:
503:
457:
432:
428:
424:
420:
412:
392:encyclopedic
363:
341:
333:
308:
282:
263:
230:
217:
210:Collectonian
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
464:TheEditrix2
370:TheEditrix2
158:free images
54:Sandstein
516:Guest9999
483:Mandsford
445:Mandsford
384:WP:USEFUL
320:• Gene93k
294:• Gene93k
239:WP:NOTDIR
443:, etc.
338:WP:SALAT
235:WP:SALAT
221:contribs
119:View log
504:Comment
458:Comment
396:Rankiri
251:Rankiri
205:WP:LIST
164:WP refs
152:scholar
92:protect
87:history
413:Delete
334:Delete
264:Delete
231:Delete
201:WP:NOT
136:Google
96:delete
46:delete
354:Space
179:JSTOR
140:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
520:talk
487:talk
449:talk
400:talk
394:. —
386:and
364:Keep
349:From
344:Them
336:per
324:talk
309:Note
298:talk
283:Note
273:talk
255:talk
215:talk
203:and
172:FENS
146:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
439:,
318:--
292:--
243:POV
186:TWL
121:•
117:– (
522:)
514:.
489:)
451:)
431:,
427:,
402:)
326:)
315:.
300:)
289:.
275:)
257:)
237:,
233:.
223:)
166:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
518:(
485:(
447:(
398:(
322:(
296:(
271:(
253:(
218:·
213:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.