Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 ~ trialsanderrors 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"[edit]

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The list portrayed here lacks of any sort of historical, useful or valuable content other than simple curiosity. The topic is not notable and doesn't comply with Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also the significance of "virtue rewarded", as opposed to any other subtitle, is not explained, thus seeming completely arbitrary S0ulfire84 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the extensive intro? Neither of your points are accurate.--SB | T 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the extensive intro and I still fail to see how is the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" any different from any other, what makes it special or different from any other that makes it worth to have an article or list of it's own. Would you mind clarifying why do you see it being notable? S0ulfire84 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there is some serious importance, actually, although a real list article can't point it out. The subtitle, prior to Pamela, indicates an attempt at either Plutarch's or Aristotle's notion of poetic justice: it will improve the audience by demonstrating what must or should occur (poetic justice) and ennoble the reader/viewer. After Pamela and its extraordinary fame, the subtitle indicates either an homage or ironic counterpoint to Samuel Richardson. Geogre 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the lead could make this point more explicit. It's a bit wandering and unconvincing (on the point of importance) at the moment without this information made clear. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can understand that, hut how is it notable when it has only happened 12 times in 400 years? I guess it's a list of homage attempts to the concept of Poetic Justice? I'm sure there are more attempts that do not include the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" than those that do. How is then this list notable then? S0ulfire84 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the solution might be to merge with the Pamela article since a case could be made for these being influenced by the work? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. ". See WP:NOT. S0ulfire84 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Well-referenced, neutral, and interesting articles are exactly what encyclopedias are for. I might suggest that it be moved to simply Virtue Rewarded, as the current title is rather awkward.--SB | T 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hates lists. I hates 'em to pieces. However, once we let the bleaters in, we have to assess them by their own criteria. This is not inherently POV and does not have an open ended include/exclude, so Keep. It's true that the list doesn't make an argument, but that's because lists never do. (Yeah, I know who wrote it, but I still hates lists.) Geogre 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the intro, and it still looks like arbitrary listcruft to me. Delete Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Hyperbole Giano 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make than main article Virtue Rewarded with a redirect from Virtue rewarded, as SB. This isn't listcruft, this is a valid literary article. Unfortunately "List of ..." tends to invoke "strong" reponses. --Steve 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is irrelevant, its not even that common of a subtitle.Communist47 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I hope you read it. Of course it's not a common subtitle: that's why it's a functional list as opposed to one of the usual "list of songs that mention their titles more than three times in their lyrics" sort of random collections. Geogre 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm missing the point but as there's obviously millions of books, there's obviously going to be loads of subtitles. There's obviously going to be common ones and uncommon ones. I'm sure if you find a subtitle, there's going to be other books that have the same subtitle just because there's millions of books. As much as I like the meaning of the subtitle, I can't see why it's so why it’s so significant. Englishrose 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is well written but still is listcruft. meshach 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is well-written and interesting and I imagine some people will find it useful. Everyking 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Communist47. Listcruft in extremis. - fchd 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge with Pamela. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, After reading the intro which is also in Subtitle (titling) so there’s no need to merge it there, it turns into 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. Wikipedia is not a listing site and there's no relevance in this list. Englishrose 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no relevance? Its poetic justice, dude. It is very skillfully organized, more of a checkered matrix, or array than a list tho'. Keep fo' sho'. DVD+ R/W 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bunchofgrapes and Everyking. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the material, but it needs some reorganisation, or the article needs renaming, or something. At the moment it's is an odd mixture of the list indicated by the title, plus some general discussion about book subtitles, of which is "Virtue Rewarded" is said to be "an example". Matt 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep, though I'm more of a Justine man myself. Haukur 11:17, 13 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_with_the_subtitle_%22Virtue_Rewarded%22&oldid=1071024647"