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


 * 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. Nandesuka 12:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia 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  T C 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia 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)
 * You must be joking. If you think that's OR, then you simply know nothing about either the novels or scholarly discourse on the 18th century novel.  You do not source common knowledge, even if there is someone somewhere who doesn't know it.  Geogre 11:37, 4 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) deemphasizing in light of my more detailed remarks infra Newyorkbrad 00:38, 3 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 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 &#9742;


 * 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... [is lost in nostalgic musings. ] I wasn't an admin, I was an irresponsible n00b mucking about. I hope the gods of Wikipedia 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)


 * Keep per WP:IAR. Capmango 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Might as well nominate AFD for AFD then Corpx 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Virtue should be punished.--Perceive 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a good list, with substantial information, & a clear criterion. DGG 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it. 1) This list is totally sweet. 2) In the vast corpus of academic publishing on The British Novel I'm sure there's something about the significance of the subtitle; if not, I'm going to draft up "Literary filiation and the subtitle, or Virtue Rewarded." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think these books have anything in common except two words in their subtitle? Corpx 03:25, 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 think the WP:NOT list of loosely releated items is referring to lists like this. Corpx 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I just dont think an encyclopedia is the place to catalog boot titles and subtitles by the words in them. It seems way too trivial.  If a bunch of books share similiar focus/content, they should be placed in a category, like Category:Books about sexual morality Corpx 03:50, 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. Witty, thought-provoking, no possibility of edit warring anywhere in sight. --Ghirla-трёп- 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. Wikipedia is not a listing site and there's no relevance in this list. Wikipedia 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)
 * Well, then nominate the "pokemon article" for deletion, instead of keeping this one because that exists. Corpx 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Retitle. With the following articles beginning "Moral... Special:Allpages/Moral_%2A and the article Morality play, there should certainly be an article Morality fiction or somesuch, with this list as an adjunct. There seems to be an obscure and fearful suspicion that a hint of wit hangs about this list... --Wetman 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like a notable, coherent topic. Everyking 10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and find more on this - it may ultimately need to be rewritten, per DeLarge (the suggestion to rename to Virtue Rewarded (literature) is a particularly good one), as a list is not the best form for this, but the article on Subtitle (titling) is woefully short at the moment, and I am sure the literary Wikipedians out there can find some obscure book or articles about the meanings and usage and interesting example of subtitles. Possibly such examples need to be scattered throughout Wikipedia as interesting trivia in the relevant articles, but there should be a unifying article somewhere. If deleted as a list, some of the worthwhile content should be rescued and placed in Subtitle (titling). I am very close to being bold and renaming to Virtue Rewarded (literature). Would anyone object to that? Carcharoth 10:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would. Feel free to re-work and rename it, but just renaming doesn't fit the present page. Pro primo, it's a list. And not all of the examples are literature. There's a handbook about writing dissertations, and ... [can't bring myself to go look] ... there may well be other non-literary books. Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Those are on there as ironic recreations of the original gesture of critical self-defense. I now see Marshal MacLuhan being brought to bear on this future dissertation, and the genre studies stuff, and the people who claim to be writing about parody but are really writing about Roland Barthes.  Geogre 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't quite bring myself to type the K-word.  See, "virtue rewarded," as Bishonen knows, was the 17th and 18th centuries' version of "a thriller" or "romantic."  Fiction was under severe attack as useless, and the conventional defense was the one they'd grabbed from Sidney's Defense of Poetry (and which he had cribbed from Plutarch's Moralia and Horace's Ars Poetica and sort of from Aristotle's Poetics) that fiction could be defensible if it showed us a world where virtue is rewarded and vice punished.  Therefore, nearly every entertainment that showed kings and queens behaving badly would say that it was "virtue rewarded" in the Restoration.  Richardson's Pamela carried that over to the novel (which was very, very suspect as silly and a swamp of vice that taught girls to be sluts).  A Puritan writing a novel?  Unheard of! "But...but...it's going to show virtue rewarded" (where "virtue" is code for the hymen).  It's the abstinence education novel of 1749.  Once Richardson did it, his allies would use the same subtitle from time to time, but then it just became a subtitle that referred back to Richardson.  When you see the later ones, they're pretty explicitly trying to invoke Richardson.  So there is a really cool bit of social and literary history one can get from the list.  Bishonen knows this.  I have urged her to write it, but it's kind of hard to take such a light romp through four centuries and into the heads of all those authors to say it in a scholarly fashion.  So: the list could serve as a very nice hint to a future researcher -- this is a dynamite master's topic, if not (with some literary theory thrown over the mess) doctoral dissertation -- but it's a list.  I hate lists.  Geogre 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But, Geogre. It's a list that says "I hate lists"! Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
 * "A list that says I hate lists"? Isn't that a bit pointy? If there is something there, write an article (or do a dissertation on it if an article would verge on original research), but don't just leave it as a list to make a point. Carcharoth 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit pointy? I guess you didn't notice my delete (indeed, speedy delete) !vote here? As in "I was trying ... to make a WP:POINT... I was an irresponsible n00b mucking about ... speedy the sucker.". WP:POINT was my principal delete reason. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
 * I had read that, but had forgotten you had said that. Still, I think that your pointed point misses the point, if you get my drift. I, for one, can't wait to read something about the history and meaning of the subtitle in literature. I searched, but failed to find anything. Carcharoth 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And then, therefore, I would agree with its sentiments in hating the lists and so would want it kept, but that it's a list and wants to delete itself. I concur with that sentiment, too.  (You know how I have argued that an article on "virtue" and "virtue rewarded" should be written and how you should do it.)  Do we eject the baby (the things on the list...and all those things that should be on there -- those "virtue in dangers" and "virtue saved") to get rid of the dirty bathwater it's floating in?  Geogre 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bishonen's D vote is persuasive and Perceive may have a point too. More worryingly, these "books": Do they run on Xbox, on PS2, or what? Where can I download them, and how many channels is the sound in? &para; Keep the sucker for now and then think of eventual delistification per Geogre. -- Hoary 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pamela and the Xbox: . --Akhilleus (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief, but that's a good link! (No, video games are not just the same as novels.  Pamela taught country girls to sell their virginity for a wedding ring, according to Henry Fielding.  Hitman teaches young boys to aim for the head.  There is at least a slight difference.  Good on them, though, and great link.)  Geogre 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the title of the article may seem ridiculous and utterly trivial, the list appears to have some value in the field of history of literature. It binds together some works with a common theme, so it is not really indiscriminate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the intertextual links between these works, which make it not a random list. Why not also just move to Virtue Rewarded? I too hate "List of..." articles, but why should this be one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sjakkalle. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per several above, and against the author's protests. Nomination seems to miss several points - Virtue is a general, well virtue, which does not need to be divided up in the medieval fashion.  Rewards are not the same - well fancy that! Johnbod 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. At first glance, it sounds like an arbitrary focus for a List, if one knows next to nothing of pre-20th c. English literature, but that's part of the List's charm and attraction, one can't help but wonder, what's this list really about?. Of course, the List is actually well-researched, coherent and "legit", though it may lack the obvious virtues of Lists like List of Pokémon characters, et al., whose virtues include zillions of living fans. Apologies to Perceive, this List should also be rewarded. Pinkville 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to emphasize something that has been suggested a few times above but not actually said, Virtue Rewarded is not merely two words that happened to come together as the subtitle of a number of written works, Virtue Rewarded is a cultural phenomenon, a defining concept that had some power in its day, and demonstrably (via this List, for example) to this day as well. The argument against this list would be akin to claiming that books with generative grammar in the title have nothing substantive in common, and that the fact that such books feature those two words in their titles is mere happenstance. But generative grammar and virtue rewarded are subjects, intellectual concepts that are/have been the subject of debate - whether in novel form, or the form of academic texts. Pinkville 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Juliette, or Vice Amply Rewarded is further evidence that a notable literary theme underlies these subtitles. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Good example. Pinkville 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That the theme of "virtue rewarded" may or may not be notable as an intellectual concept does not mean that a list of every time the words "virtue rewarded" appear together in the subtitle of a book is notable. That is the distinction that is too often missed by people who want to keep these sorts of catch-all lists. The notability of Subject X does not automatically extend notability to every example of Subject X or everything that discusses Subject X or parodies Subject X or uses the words "Subject X." Otto4711 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. To quote Simone de Beauvoir: "Must we burn Samuel Richardson?" Mais non. Ça serait la vertu infortunée.--Pan Gerwazy 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it me, or are all the 18th century literati crawling out of the woodwork? :-) Carcharoth 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Virtue Rewarded" is a commonly used term and apparently originated from one author after another in the 17th and 18th century using Virtue Rewarded as a subtitle for their book to provide a connection between their book and existing books that already carried the Virtue Rewarded subtitle. This list is a collection of book subtitles having a definite association. The very useful list probably does not appear anywhere in print other than Wikipedia. What a valuable addition to Wikipedia this article makes! Good job. Some modern uses of the term:
 * Virtue rewarded: the new dependency of the NOW woman. (reliance on government for solutions to social problems). Harper's Bazaar (May 1978)
 * Capitalism, or Virtue rewarded. New York Times (February 9, 1986) Pg. 718
 * Finance and the Family: Virtue rewarded / Ethical investment. Financial Times (July 26, 1986)
 * Little Nell, or Virtue rewarded. New York Times (March 13, 1988)
 * Straight talking: Virtue rewarded. Evening Mail (April 27, 2001)
 * Virtue rewarded Evening Standard (April 18, 2007)
 * -- Jreferee  (Talk) 05:55, 9 July 2007 (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.