Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 2 July 2007

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

• Articles for deletion/List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"
• Articles for deletion/List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" (2nd nomination)

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - Misplaced Pages articles are not collections of loosely-associated topics. Similar to the many, many articles deleted because they share a common word or words in the title, the items on this list have no relationship to one another beyond the author's happening to pick the same two words as a subtitle. They are drawn from multiple styles of "books" (including fiction books, textbooks, plays, poems, "erotic fiction" and anthologies) from across disparate centuries, have dissimilar protagonists, do not share the same "virtue" and the virtue does not garner the same reward. This list tells us nothing about the fiction or the real world. Keep arguments from the first AFD are incredibly poor, including among others such unpersuasive reasons as "interesting" and "well-written." Otto4711 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The inclusion criteria to this list seems completely random. Dr bab 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Q 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Misplaced Pages is not the place to categorize subtitles of books. This is a clear violation of WP:NOT as a list of loosely associated topics. Corpx
• Delete. The introduction tries to make a point that "Virtue Rewarded" is a subtitle of special importance in literature; but this goes completely unsourced, and hence must be considered original research. Without this point, however, the list remains a collection of loosely associated topics. --B. Wolterding 22:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per prior AfD result and the Keep arguments of Bunchofgrapes and Everyking therein; nothing has changed. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you refer to the following arguments from the previous AfD? Write an equally well-written and -sourced list/article hybrid on any other specific subtitle you care to, and we can keep that one too. / This is well-written and interesting and I imagine some people will find it useful. If you think these are valid arguments for keeping the article, please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; in particular, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --B. Wolterding 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Newyorkbrad, and this is a distinct and unique list of books, with a very specific historic link. It is certainly not random. (Is random really a reason for deleting an article?) Peace.Lsi john 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a reliable source for this historic link? --B. Wolterding 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Paul August ☎

• All right. I conceived and wrote this piece. Quite a few books, as such, have been added by other contributors over the years, but, well, I planned, designed, and started it, and wrote the unsourced lead, and made the table... I was trying firstly to be funny, and secondly to make a WP:POINT about silly lists. Long time ago... I wasn't an admin, I was an irresponsible n00b mucking about. I hope the gods of Misplaced Pages won't ban me for it, and I think the time has come to speedy the sucker. Just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates