Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 4 July 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:07, 4 July 2007 by Everyking (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

AfDs for this article:
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)

  • 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).
    • Keep anyway per WP:ILIKEIT, an argument whose disfavored status is overruled in this instance. I think it's good to have an occasional article whose painstakingly assembled content is to be found nowhere else ... and it's certainly not doing any harm. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I won't add more alphabet soup here... just this one: If you're looking for articles whose painstakingly assembled content is to be found nowhere else, have a look at WP:BJAODN. There's plenty. --B. Wolterding 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Otto4711, and especially per Bishonen, whose opinion is one of the most cogent I've ever seen in an AfD discussion. And Newyorkbrad, you may want to strike out one of your keep !votes, as you're entitled to only one. Deor 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think the closer would recognize a certain amount of playfullness in my participation in this particular AfD, but in the interest of comity I will take Deor's suggest. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Newyorkbrad and also because the whole renominating it so soon is kind of overkill. --164.107.222.23 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The last AFD was held last year and it certainly should have no bearing on this one. The only connections these books have in common are that they share 2 words in the subtitle. This is the textbook definition of directory of loose items (WP:NOT) Corpx 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes--the post-Pamela books are making a very clear allusion to the title (though perhaps not the substance) of Richardson's novel. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the point of the list is negated if all items on it dont meet the set critera. Unless you remove the first two entires, do the items have anything else in common?
Well, the subtitle, obviously. The problem is that I haven't read most of these books, but I think it would be possible to argue that they share a common focus on sexual morality (or in the case of the erotic novel, sexual immorality). Is that focus exclusive to these works? Hardly. Is the list silly? Absolutely. But that's the essence of its charm. --Akhilleus (talk)
I'm not sure I agree, exactly--to me, "the subtitle is 'Virtue Rewarded'" is a pretty tight criterion. The more cogent objection is "why should we have a list based on what appears to be an insignificant characteristic of these novels?" And my answer is "because it's cool"! And yes, I realize that this could be construed as an argument for deletion instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What would be the fun in that? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually WP:ILIKEIT is a reason to delete the article. "Because It's Cool"? Akhilleus, you are right that is a pretty good reason for deletion. Wildthing61476 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; the phrase has entered common parlance (witness thesetwo very disparate headlines as examples), and an exploration of its literary origins seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Rewrite the opening using less WP:OR and more WP:RS, and perhaps rename to simply Virtue Rewarded (literature) or something similar. --DeLarge 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Question is, are there any WP:RS for the opening? As User:Bishonen admitted above, she created this intro as a joke. We can hardly expect that there are any sources "just by chance" - unless you can provide some. --B. Wolterding 12:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Please use a little more care with your wording. I didn't admit it. Nobody cornered me and forced it out of me. I freely acknowledged it. The intro isn't a joke, as such, though the list is—while the claims in it aren't verified, I'm convinced they're correct. I might be able to find some sources. But I'm afraid I'm not prepared to undertake the research effort involved, since I'm in any case recommending "speedy the sucker". That's "she", not "he," btw. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
        • Excuse me if the word "admit" was slightly incorrect; I'm not a native speaker. --B. Wolterding 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying source what's there, I'm saying rewrite using sources. As I said, it's an established phrase in literature. I created Selling coal to Newcastle in a couple of hours after it had previously been transwiki'd and deleted, and it was nominated for a DYK within a couple of days. Would this article take less time or more to improve? I don't know, and since my lunch hour is almost over I'm not likely to find out for several hours. But I see an encyclopedic article here, regardless of its origins. --DeLarge 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The two sources you mention refer to this phrase in the context of medicine and corporations. I've never read these books, but an editor mentioned above that the usage in the list was suggestive of sexual morality? I dont think the two sources you provided are talking about the same "Virtue rewarded" Corpx 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer. The links were a demonstration that "virtue rewarded" isn't just a ye olde literary subtitle, but a phrase long established in English and used in a variety of contexts. I recommended renaming the page because I think there could be a more expansive article, with the list serving to demonstrate its etymological origins in 17th and 18th century literature. And since the basis of this article would still be what's currently here, I'd infinitely prefer an expansion/renaming, rather than starting from scratch with a userfied version that doesn't give credit to User:Bishonen (which may be a GFDL violation). Regards, --DeLarge 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out in the first AfD, vice is where the real rewards are. Nevertheless keep because ILIKEIT. And if that super-strong argument doesn't hold up then userfy until reliable sources can be found. Haukur 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful, informative, no possibility of edit warring anywhere in sight. --Ghirla 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Listcruft of book that contain the same subtitle. Obviously there's thousands/millions of subtitles and you're bound to get a collection of subtitles with the same name. Misplaced Pages is not a listing site and there's no relevance in this list. Misplaced Pages is not the place to categorize subtitles of books and it is not a place for original research. The only form that this article should remain on is the users own page. Englishrose 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & ample precedents and due to irrelevant coincidence of name. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on. I've seen a whole lot of list that should not be included here, but this isn't one of them. This is definitely informative, definitely enjoyable and much better than any pokemon aticle out there! (I know other crap exists and all that, but come on people, this is truely more encyclopedic than any Pokemom article!!!!!)--SGT Tex 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: