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


 * 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. I wasn't around in 2004 but I joined in 2005 and read enough dramaboards to say that it was a very different place. It was certainly a more homogeneous community which allowed for us to have fun. Then we made the mistake of doing a good enough job on the whole be one of the world's largest websites and, despite our protests to the contrary, become one of the leading reference sources in the English speaking world. Our community is more diverse which carries certain advantages (we're only pretty systemically biased instead of being incredibly systemically biased!) but also means that we've had to "grow up". Rather than fun, in 2020 we have April Fools "jokes" that are so amusing that they find a way to cause multiple noticeboard discussions and RfCs. So instead we're left with policies and guidelines like "No Original Research" (an oldie but a goodie). The discussion here seems to suggest that the WP:Let whatever Floquenbeam likes exist guideline might have some support but alas that isn't the discussion I'm closing. So instead we end up with a delete consensus. However, there is clearly enough support for the tomfoolery of days gone by that it could certainly exist in someone's userspace (or perhaps even project space) and I would have to burnish the "no fun stick" that I was given instead of a mop to anyone suggesting it be WP:G4 (abbreviations impenetrable to outsides? Just as good in 2020 as 2005). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Not only does this blatantly fail WP:LISTN (there are no sources discussing these works as a group), but the prose introduction to the list is just WP:OR trying to explain a common theme to the works. This is a pretty clear example of WP:NOTDIR #6 and shouldn't be here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes, well. It's an old joke from 2004, showcasing my primitive sense of humour and my interest in obscure 17th-century literature. Feel free to delete. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete: This list appears to be a collection of random rubbish. Furthermore, . &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 15:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:LISTN although fairly amusing and remarkable that this has lasted so long!! Spiderone  17:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - old joke, fails LISTN, this could probably be speedied. Hog Farm Bacon 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Would it be meaningful to turn this into a disambiguation page called Virtue Rewarded? TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not, because every entry would only be a WP:PTM. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the rationales of most of those who commented at the previous two AFD's (which for some reason aren't weren't mentioned here (they are now)). I wish it was still 2004, when all the quirkiness hadn't been relentlessly sucked out of the place, and a bunch of smart and witty and clever people (I even saw Geogre's name in the history, which brought a brief smile to my face) could create something for the sheer joy of creating it. I know, I know, even Bish has never supported keeping it.  I know, I know,  WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOFUNALLOWED and lots of other bluelinks. I know, I know, we are an ever so much more serious encyclopedia than we were back then.  I know, I know, this is going to get deleted this time.  But when sociologists of the future study the rapid loss of fun and joy and personality in Wikipedia between around 2007 and 2020, I hope they note that, although the drop in support for this article between the AFD of 2007 and this one was stark, there was still one lone holdout even in darkest 2020. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, bah! humbug! Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to group things merely by shared name. That is exactly what this list is doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons given by and in the previous deletion discussions. It is a sad but typical comment on the way that Wikipedia has developed over the years that, whereas in 2006 and 2007 there was strong support for keeping, now there is scarcely any. JBW (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - A quick Google search finds some supporting citations for the content in the lede (such as this), and there may be more out there. The page seems like a worthwhile collection of pages/titles that are related to a small, but still existent phenomenon. Interesting read and I don't think the encyclopedia adds any value from its removal. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited article only seems to be talking about one specific work, not any sort of phenomenon as a whole or the application of the subtitle to multiple works. The mere existence of this list, not to mention the prose content of the article, violates WP:NOR, one of the core policies of Wikipedia.  The nomination for the second AFD explained it much better:   In other words, there is no phenomenon.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . This article is a delight. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and actually there's a decent shot at WP:LISTN per, which suggests that the subtitle has been treated as a distinct phenomenon in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re the original comment, that's a nice sentiment and all, but delightful OR is still OR; it doesn't really get a pass based on its delightfulness. And re the followup, this doesn't really help on its own.  Which of these is discussing these as a group? The couple I checked from the first page sure don't seem to be. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and look like a good start to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also a tantalizing search result that I can't seem to get full access to in which begins "The prevalence of subtitles such as "Virtue Rewarded," "Virtue Lost," and the like speaks to this." I know it sounds like I'm obfuscating, but I'm really not—Google just won't let me view that part. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Err, this link is for Writing the Self, Creating Community: German Women Authors and the Literary Sphere, 1750-1850, and I'm not sure where you're reading that; it's not in the blurb, and a full-text search for "virtue rewarded" only returns one match, which simply lists the title with no further discussion. Likewise, "subtitles" only gives one unrelated match, and "virtue lost" gives no matches. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons cited by User:Floquenbeam. And the reasons cited at Articles for deletion/List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" and here Easily meets WP:GNG.  WP:Preserve.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Please disregard; this is retaliatory and offers absolutely nothing to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Please disregard the personal attack by Decacon Vorbis; this is retaliatory and offers absolutely nothing to the discussion. It is an Ad homimen irrelevancy.  Indeed, it is part of an ongoing larger pattern and sheds light on all of his comments at this AFD.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please point out what light this sheds on my other comments here, where I've advanced policy-based reasons to delete this article and have responded to claims of sources. I eagerly await your civil response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Res ipsa loquitor I am eagerly awaiting your apology. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)s
 * The arguments at the prior discussions do in fact add a lot to this discussion.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh? Which one(s) in particular? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your justification for serial deletion discussions ("light bulb" notability, which is miraculously lost — it turns off and on from time to time) is silly. The article's history is to the contrary.  But magic mutability is the core sentiment of your actions.  But I do not expect you to understand, and this note is not addressed to you. Peace.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This fails WP:LISTN as there are no sources that actually discuss this grouping or phenomenon as a set. There are certainly some sources on some of the individual pieces mentioned here, but there are none that discuss the concept as a whole, making the grouping complete WP:OR.  Even the creator of the article has admitted as such here.  All of the keep votes here are referencing Floquenbeam's comment, but that comment does not cite any relevant policy nor provide any relevant sources, and is an entirely an WP:ILIKEIT comment, making these completely invalid arguments.  They also keep citing the previous two discussions, but looking at those, none of the Keep votes in either of them actually provided any relevant arguments either - they're a mixture of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT posts, none of which actually provide evidence that there are sources that would help this pass WP:LISTN.  Rorshacma (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Mostly non-notable works that happen to share the the same two words but are otherwise unrelated. No sources discuss this phrase itself or the list as a whole, with the lead reading as original research. Reywas92Talk 19:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Floquenbeam's wistful look back to a time when editors had a "kinder gentler machine gun hand". But more importantly this is a legitimate list per WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. The list certainly provides information and has some navigation usefulness. Also as AleatoryPonderings has shown us:, is a distinct phenomenon in its own right. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This list has no navigational or informational purpose with which to justify a keep argument. Your link is a search result one might get from Google Books when starting to look for sources.  However, as noted above, nothing in those search results actually discusses the topic of the list.  A "wistful look back" is also not a valid reason to keep something (even the article creator admitted it was a joke; and for the record, it was a long time ago, and I certainly don't think anyone should hold this against them either).  But come on, this is an obvious delete that not even the staunchest inclusionist can justify keeping.  It's time to nip this one in the bud and move on. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the bud? I created it in 2004! Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
 * The title appeals to me in light of 2020s extreme Virtue signalling. We disagree on several subjects but I tend to defend list articles for WP:LISTN's defined purposes. I appreciate the insight from Floq - an administrator who knows where the bones are buried. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, per, this is actually quite encyclopedic and relevant to the topic of English literature. Right cite (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam didn't offer a valid reason to keep. It was a case of an old hand waxing nostalgic about the good ol' days while quietly acknowledging that this is still a delete.  Bald statements like this don't counter the simple lack of  sources on this topic, as has been pointed out numerous times already.  Nor the violation of WP:NOR. Please have a read through WP:ATA. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a non-sensical list trying to make things seem related somehow that aren't. Plus, it's not a list of things "subtitle Virtue Rewarded" anyway. It's a list of things with the phrase "Virtue Rewarded" in them, which is completely different, or things with "Virtue Rewarded" in the title, but were isn't a subtitle. So, the list is junk that's just a repository of random, un-connected articles. Plus, all the stuf about who the virtuous person is etc. etc. is OR and better suited to an essay. The important thing to take into account with the quote above from WP:LISTN is where it says "recognizable." While this may (extremely questionably) aid in navigation Etc. Etc., it does not do so in a recognizable or meaningful way. There's nothing that connects any of the linked articles besides (randomly) sharing two meaningless words their titles. It that way, it's similar in usefulness or informational relevance to List_of_works_with_the_word_"the"_in_the_title (or subtitle). Which wouldn't be useful or relevant at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have said that the list may not aid navigation in a "meaningful way" - but that is for the users to decide. You have also stated that this may (extremely questionably) aid in navigation Etc. Etc. - I submit that is why we have the LISTN guideline - if the list aids navigation or provides information for any users it is useful and we should WP:PRESERVE it. We are WP:NOTPAPER so we have room for any item which may be useful to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, aren't the you the one that said "The list certainly provides information and has some navigation usefulness" in your keep comment? So, it's cool for you to vote keep because you think it navigationally useful, but when I vote delete because I think it isn't, then suddenly it's up to the users to decide if it aids in navigation or not?..Right...I've seen some pretty transparently ridiculous and one sided arguments, but that one has to take the cake.--Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you always this aggressive in AfD discussions, Adamant1? The article (which somebody wrote, you know (namely me)) is "nonsensical" and "junk" according to you, and now other people's arguments are "transparently ridiculous". Have you noticed that most other people who give their opinion here do so quite politely? Please don't lower the tone. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry your offended by my feedback that aspects of "your" article don't make sense and are meaningless. Maybe learn from it and create a better article next time. Although, probably you shouldn't if you can't even handle pretty milk toast comments like mine. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is (at least) an admin has asked you to tone down your snark in AfD discussions in less than a month. Responding to that with more snark is neither a good look nor productive. TompaDompa (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) That response gives you a pretty good idea of the answer to your question, "Are you always this aggressive in AfD discussions?". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I probably would have acted more congenial about it. Except that the admin comment was in relation to a comment I made to Lightburst. Who has made multiple snarky, personal, and uncalled for comments toward me in the last couple of days. So has another user. I'm not going to be "polite" just for sake of it while other people are repeatedly disparaging me without so much as a peep about their behavior from anyone. Let alone an admin. There's plenty of examples of me acting perfectly civil in AfDs though and generally I'm pretty "polite." Except when other people aren't toward me. That aside, I'm not a huge fan of the whole "polite" way Bishonen framed their comment. There's plenty of people on here who "polite", but still act pretty wretchedly. A matter fact, I reported someone to the admin board like a month ago who made some pretty harsh comments about me and I was pretty roundly told by everyone that kind of thing is just par for the course of Wikipedia and that I should stop being so overly sensitive and just deal with it. So, sorry if I tend to disregard complaints about how I act and not take them seriously. Maybe I would if bad faithed acting people like Lightburst and others who constantly make everything personal were put in their place for it, or if I wasn't told by a bunch of people to stop being an over sensitive complainer and just suck it up when I complained about them. I'm sorry you guys can't handle it from me, when you expect everyone else just deal with it and it's dished out constantly by almost everyone. Really. Especially Lightburst. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't you take off the battle-dress for a bit? People who looked at the complaint that you made saw that it was without foundation, in that the complained-about editor had done nothing more than disagree with you, but you seem to think that any disagreement with you is a personal attack and that any personal attack that you make is just a disagreement. Just go on an anger-management course or something rather than carry on with this complete lack of self-awareness. As an example, you appear to have completely failed to notice that Bishonen said early in this discussion that she was happy for this to be deleted, but you seem to prefer a battleground to a civilised discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * She was the one that took offense to me saying parts of the article didn't make sense instead of assuming good faith. So, if anything she was the one making this a battleground. Otherwise, feel free to show me anywhere in the guideline that says "nonsense" or "garbage" are derogatory, insulting words or whatever. Same goes for Lightburst and his worthless, none constructive comment calling out my vote when it was based on the same exact logic as his. How exactly was his comment constructive or AGF? I don't think every disagreement is a personal attack. There are specific people, including Lightburst, who repeatedly act in bad faith and attack me for no reason though and I do think people are personally attacking me when they are. He and ToughPigs were just doing it in another AfD and in an RfD. Other people even said they were, but sure, ignore that and make this all about me. I don't need anger management classes for being assertive with someone who was just attacking me in other places or because I'm a tad defensive with people who I've had longstanding issues with and who refuse to leave me alone. Thanks though. Your assertion that I do seems a lot like victim blaming to me. Especially since there's tons of discussions, not involve those specific people, where I get attacked and just leave it alone. Someone attacks me (or just disagrees with me) in almost every AfD I do or am involved in. Obviously I'm not arguing with people in 99% of the AfDs I'm involved with though. Obviously your suffering from self selection bias. BTW, something I've always found a bit ironic about the AGF guideline is that no one can invoke it without not AGF themselves. I think that same idea is applicable to here and your whole thing. Especially the part about me making this a battle ground. You should ask yourself who messaged who here and which "original" comments where constructive and which weren't. All I did was vote and say the article didn't make sense. That's it. I'm not the one making this a battle ground. Hell, look at the discussion below this one. There's disagreements and arguements everywhere. It's laughable to single me out. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, at the risk of also being BLUDGEONED, I found the list useful and informative, and possibly most important it includes items that don’t yet, or may ever earn, their own articles. We’re here to share knowledge and this does exactly that. I’ll look for more references as well.  Glee anon 12:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - No !vote here. Just a comment. I wonder if those turning out to keep this also show up if it had been created yesterday by some random redlinked newbie? For some, sure (this one has drawn some representatives of the always-keep, as well as the always-delete crowds), but some of the comments here have the feel of "it's old and fun, and it was written by a friend." We regularly jump on top of new editors for creating pages that aren't up to snuff, pulling them into this confusing, legalistic process, and people don't make the "it's delightful so IAR" sort of arguments on their behalf. So I don't know if I'm saying "let's not be so cabally" or "remember the newbies" ... maybe I'll just conclude by titling this comment "Noblesse oblige, or Virtue Rewarded". &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a remarkable amount of ABF crammed into one paragraph. As far as I can tell "...and it was written by a friend" applies only to me. If you can find one instance of me ever attacking a newbie for writing something remotely similar, point it out. If you can't, perhaps dial the smug superiority down about 3 notches. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the characterization of "remarkable amount of ABF" and it wasn't directed only at you (if nothing else, your rationale was "per"ed many times). And I certainly didn't intend to imply that anyone here has attacked newbies. Nearly the opposite: that to the extent this IAR keep attitude is a positive thing, it would be nice to spread it around evenly to include newbies. That doesn't mean you're mean to newbies; it means I only see this kind of argument when the nomination statement happens to have appeared on a much-liked/much-watched userpage (perhaps a fairer way to frame it than "written by a friend"). It's a double-standard, but perhaps not one that can be helped, since it's not like we can expect anyone to participate in every AfD or watch every user page. I just have mixed feelings when an article that would have no chance if created by a new user is kept because it was created by a veteran (again, that's not an accusation of bad faith necessarily, but likely a natural consequence of who's watching the user page). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Funny, delightful, but alas seems to me to fail WP:LISTN and WP:NOR. Double sharp (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I found about two dozen Google Scholar hits which may be exactly what sourcing is needed. I’m technically challenged for chasing them down further but perhaps those with better sleuthing skills can check them out?  Glee anon 19:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. No, it probably doesn't qualify by usual modern Wikipedia standards, and it certainly shouldn't be used as a precedent it's okay to create new spinoff articles for whatever bizarre subtitle tracking some editor wants to do.  That said, it's harmless and quirky on its own and seems to be a rare case of "original research" producing something interesting, so keep as a small shrine to the Wikipedia of 2004 that was going to be an Internet-curated database of everything.  A small amount of such silliness on Wikipedia is fine and harmless; the dose makes the poison, etc.  SnowFire (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As per usual when anything on Wikipedia is designed for those seeking a higher education, there are those who want to consign it to the trash can. This article is very encyclopaedic, useful and interesting. Giano    (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subtitle is a notable historical phenomenon. Does need a source. List derives from that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fun but not policy compliant, per everyone above. ListN & NOR. Perhaps as a user essay. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.