Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of White Male Authors with Critically Acclaimed Novels Over 500 Pages


 * 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

List of White Male Authors with Critically Acclaimed Novels Over 500 Pages

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not a notable union of two topics. Seems like someone is trying to prove a point or right a wrong they see in the world. Also a coatrack of sorts -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of WP:LISTN, i.e. that "White Male Authors with Critically Acclaimed Novels Over 500 Pages" is a group or set that is notable (or even defined), saying nothing about the notability of each author and their books. There are several forms of arbitrary selection criteria: race, gender, genre, page count, and the unclear criterion of "Critically Acclaimed" (just how many critics must acclaim a book for its inclusion? How many and which awards must it win?) I believe this is an example of Listcruft, a list for the sake of making a list. But Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely related topics. Why not novels over 400 pages? None of the sources in the introductory paragraphs mention an arbitrary cut off of 500 pages (or any from what I can tell), some touch on books about women rather than by men (or women), and while the subject of sexual inequality in publishing is a noteworthy, this is not the way to address it. Is the reader supposed to compare this list to some similar list of white female authors whose books have equal or greater page lengths? Women authors in general? Altogether this seems like raw data assembled to support a point of view, but not appropriate as a list in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there are 70 items on this list, which is not complete, this is not a nominal subject. The article does not discuss the merit of the books--many I enjoy and think are deserving of their acclaim--and is merely a compilation that proves a phenomenon that, as the introduction shows, has been observed and cited numerous times  . Research from VIDA especially supports the claims regarding gender imbalance in literary criticism. The article does not pose that the information is "right or wrong," but simply lists books in this criteria. Any subjective comment is in quotes, putting it in the words of the original speaker, and not the author of the article. If those comments are what invalidates this article, they can be removed. If a user wants to make a list of critically acclaimed works above 500 pages by minorities, they are free to do so. With both commentators posting within minutes of each other, I see this argument of deletion to not be in good faith, but a premeditated, organized effort to remove the page. rreizman (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is nothing more a discussion of whether this article complies with policy and what an encyclopedia is for, and is not an attack on you personally. I noticed this was nominated for deletion because the article was on my watchlist, no premeditation or conspiracy involved. This list, regardless of the prose, says nothing about gender imbalance in literary criticism, as it includes no other genders. Wikipedia is not a place for proving things or tracking trends, per the policy on No original research. Appropriate topics for lists tend to be elements that form a natural set, or have some commonality for which they are widely recognized and discussed (cities in a state, alumni from a university, horror writers, etc.). The focal listed elements generally (but not always) have a notable topic article (e.g. List of Nobel laureates in Literature derives logically from Nobel Prize in Literature). There is no article on White male authors, nor Books over 500 pages, thus the intersection of the two needs stronger evidence that it is considered a notable subject. Even if the article gender imbalance in literary criticism were created, this list would not logically accompany it. Note we have many lists of writers, and lists of books but the scope of the lists are unambiguous, and involve no arbitrary thresholds or subjective definitions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If articles relating to this phenomena don't exist, it doesn't mean it's not happening, and it would be against the rules of wikipedia for me to make original articles listing white male authors or 500 page novels just for the sake of having this list put up. The long novel has been widely acknowledged and meditated upon by various critics , and there is an article that lists the longest novels ever written. As gender studies is a legitimate field, observing gender imbalance in conjunction with novel length, and its correlation to literary merit, is worthy of a list on wikipedia. Again, because there are 70 entries, these books are not outliers. In reference to original research, I can remove the majority of the exposition at the beginning of the article, which was only placed there to reinforce credibility that this list has value. rreizman (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and for (a) being too arbitrarily specific (why 500?) and thus failing WP:SALAT and (b) having vague criteria ("critically acclaimed" and "contemporary"). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Criteria for critically acclaimed and contemporary is now defined: consideration for prestigious literary prizes and inclusion on aggregation of greatest books of all time lists. Contemporary is implied, as these prizes did not exist before the 20th century. rreizman (talk)
 * Delete I'm not seeing how a list with such arbitrary criteria could ever meet list notability guidelines, as stated above. It would seem to be a pretty useless union of data.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the comments under the previous two contestations for explanations regarding "arbitrary" criteria. As already explained, there are enough titles, articles and awards cited to prove this is visible trend in literary fiction. rreizman (talk)
 * rreizman I still must disagree. Certainly, the awards as they pertain to the authors are notable, but nothing about the authors or the awards connects them in a way that would make this list proper. EricEnfermero makes an excellent point that the users as a group should also merit inclusion. While I have invoked the idea that "if this page goes, lots of others will too" (WP:ALLORNOTHING), I couldn't honestly suggest it here, since the authors and awards are notable in ways that have nothing to do with the author's race or gender. This is a trend in literary fiction to the extent that a list of notable white, male billionaires in the Unites States or notable while male colonists of the 17th century would represent a trend. In fact, I might go so far as to say that lists of this nature represent an implied editorializing (WP is not a soapbox).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also support lists of notable white, male billionaires in the US or white male colonists in the 17th century. Those are cohesive lists united by the same criteria, of people within the same demographic. We have List of female Nobel laureates, so why not critically acclaimed white male authors? There are also: List of women writers, List of female sculptors, List of female mathematicians, List of female film actors, etc. With this consideration, your objection to a list of men does not make any sense. The list is much stronger without the exposition, which I would like to delete, but as multiple people are complaining about sources cited it seems that it was necessary to add. Rreizman (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We have List of women in mathematics, not List of women in mathematics who wrote more than 5 books on linear algebra in the 20th century. It is your hand-selected arbitrary selection of authors that is problematic, as there is no indication that these exact 70+ authors are what literary scholars are referring to. You are in one list conflating legitimate but separate issues of length, gender, and ethnicity. Even the five criteria for "critical acclaim" exclude other sources of acclaim: see just British literary awards and American literary awards for more cherry-picking potential from the lengthy list of literary awards. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, then the list continues to include from the lengthy list of literary awards and grows even longer. I am not opposed to continuing to add to the list if that makes it less arbitrary, though I will point out that the level of prestige of awards is not applicable to all the ones listed on wikipedia. An Oscar or Golden Globe is far more respected than a Satellite Award, and not many would debate that. The citations referring to lengthy novels are mostly discussing work from white male authors, making it a notable distinction. There is no commentary on whether this ought to be the case or not, similarly to the Female Nobel Laureates pointing out a gender gap, but not more than that. This list is not as specific as your hyperbolic example, and the genre of Literary fiction could arguably be removed because a few Westerns have been awarded these prizes, though novels are often cross-genre. The length begins at a word count exceeding the categorization of epics, and the article can be revised to reflect word count instead of page numbers, which is a more accurate representation of length and what I should have used to start with (my bad on that.) --Rreizman (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Having read all of the previous comments, I can understand that a number of notable people belong to this group, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether an article on the group as a whole would pass our notability criteria. No reliable sources are discussing this group of authors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The entries come directly from lists for the Pulitzer, National Book Award, National Critics Circle Award, the Man Booker Prize and the aggregated list of 100 Greatest Novels. The citations will be updated soon, but if these awards are not credible sources, then the wikipedia articles on them should be taken down as well. rreizman (talk)
 * The entries aren't the problem. The article has been nominated for deletion; the entries on the list are not up for deletion. Those sources you list don't characterize your group in terms of gender, race or the other characteristics suggested by the title. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When Female nobel prize laureates or List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees are announced, the organizations makes no distinction of gender. The identity of these individuals is public information, and unless they went on record as identifying as another race or gender, that information appears to be useable on wikipedia lists. --Rreizman (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the notability of those non-AFD-nominated entries, but the existence of other articles shouldn't be used as a rationale for keeping an AFD-nominated article (or as a rationale for badgering the heck out of AFD participants). EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am responding to your comments, not badgering. I do not see any reason why public information on the authors cannot be used for a list, when it is common practice on wikipedia. I have explained why I believe the demographic of authors is notable, and you have not provided any reasoning as to why it is not.--Rreizman (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreeing with others that we are dealing with a list with several arbitrarily chosen criteria – regardless of how precisely Rreizman defines them, the choice of those definitions is still arbitrary. The article which wanders towards coatrack territory; I wouldn't be averse to the coat having its own article, but the coatrack can't be salvaged. Aspirex (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While there are not yet articles for the subject, there are categories for male authors by nationality, and Winners/Nominees/Finalists for the literary awards mentioned in the article, as well as an article list of longest novels. There is a natural intersection of the subjects. As suggested, others are welcome to make lists of critically acclaimed long novels from minority authors. The list is focused on the "coat" and uses objective data in its introduction to explain why this is not arbitrary criteria, as there is argument for deletion. It can be removed. rreizman (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, having read the above, both deleters and supporters of this article have given examples of other lists, confusing the issue with the What about X argument. But does this article meet WP:NLIST? ie. "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", has it?  Also, no. 6 of WP:NOTDIR - "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." is it? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the excellent point about number 6 of WP:NOTDIR. I think that really cuts through a lot of the involved discussion we've had here to a simple criterion to judge.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment reading over notability for lists, there is no consensus of guidelines for lists of X and y, which I think this list is. Plus I don't see original research from the creator of the page... the statements seem sourced ok. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the list would be stronger if there were more RS for the opening paragraph that supports the list. Something peer reviewed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - That there is not consensus for precise guidelines for lists of x and y does not mean that any list of x and y is an appropriate topic for a list. The original research is what's required the purport a valid topic here, synthesizing the various otherwise notable/sourced components. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - is this intended as some sort of joke? perhaps a satire of unnecessary lists on Wikipedia?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT, WP:LIST, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SNOW. This has to be the ultimate synthetic list. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as the long and detailed name suggests not many would suggest this although how detailed it is so far. SwisterTwister   talk  04:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.