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. Consensus has swayed to keep over time. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of knitters in literature

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of knitters in literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NLIST doesn't have the clearest criteria and lists usually seem to end up kept at AfD, but this particular one seems trivial enough to test usual convention. I don't think there are enough major literary characters specifically known for knitting to warrant the existence of this list. — Anonymous 01:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - An interesting list. Those of us who had required reading in school of A Tale of Two Cities remember Madame DeFarge knitting and knitting...and then knitting some more. The Knitting navbox at the bottom is helpful. — Maile (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if somehow notable (doubtful, and the article's 0 sources do not go any way to proving that) nothing here is salvageable. Knitting is not defining for any of these anyway, and almost all are not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the broader topic of knitting in literature would plausibly be notable — a quick search found quite a few sources that discuss it as a literary theme (e.g. [1] [2] [3]). But WP:NLIST would require sources that discuss "characters who knit" as a group or set, and I'm not really seeing any evidence of that. There are sources that use specific characters/texts to analyse how knitting features in literature, but none that describe "knitters" as a defined group. And I agree with PARAKANYAA that there's really nothing salvageable here, this is just an unexplained collection of characters who happen to be described knitting. MCE89 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in its re-written form as a prose article per discussion below, and move to a title like Knitting in literature. My issues with the list of knitters clearly no longer apply, and this seems like a perfectly good start at a new article on the topic of knitting in fiction. MCE89 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge to Knitting. This is both fun and obscure, but as obscure does not mean not notable: @An anonymous username, not my real name: Was the opinion that this topic is trivial and I don't think there are enough major literary characters double-checked with the WP:BEFORE search which is required before a deletion nomination? Looking at the sources brought up MCE89, I cannot access the first one, but the other two to me seem to cover "knitters in literature" as a group at least as much as "knitting in literature", both having (female) knitters already in the title. The book Sock by a reputable publisher likewise covers knitters in literature as a group starting p. 99. So I think these establish the minimum for notability and WP:NLIST. For other sources like Victorian Needlework and Cult Media, Fandom, and Textiles knitting may be in the forefront, but they still talk about various knitters, and showcase that them being knitters may not be their central trait, but has a specific relevance for each character.
Now, granted, a clear inclusion critereon is not defined so far, but that's a problem that can be solved on the talk page is therefore no grounds for deletion. I would suggest to use secondary sources, both those listed and others, and then only keep those characters where secondary sources talk about them knitting being a characteristic. If this should in the end lead to a short list, it can be merged to Knitting. If someone wants to reorient this article to cover the knitters in literature embedded in a Knitting in literature article, I have no objections. But again that would be no grounds to delete everything first. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are good, but I still would argue that they discuss Knitting in literature more than knitters in literature. Under different circumstances, perhaps a merge would be viable, but the target doesn't exist plus have you seen the page? There isn't really anything salvageable. — Anonymous 18:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username, not my real name: That's a new argument as compared to the nomination. And indeed the article currently looks pretty bad. But seeing that some entries we have now are treated in more detail in the found relevant secondary sources, I think it would still be good to keep as a starting point to the improvements I've described above. Thanks for acknowledging my first small steps in that direction. Also see the discussion on a prose version below. Daranios (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have to agree with a comment above: I think there's room for discussion of knitting as a trope, but listing all the individual knitters is into WP:NOTTVTROPES territory. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In its current state, this is just a pure collection of WP:RAWDATA absent any meaningful context or analysis. That does not an article make. It does not even make for the beginnings of an article. The editors who say that there is nothing to salvage here is correct—whether the topic is theoretically notable doesn't really enter into it. This is rather a textbook example of violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDATABASE, which says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As such, WP:DELREASON#14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia—applies. Analysis, not examples, is what makes an encyclopedic article (examples can support the analysis, but can never replace it). It seems likely that a Knitting in literature/Knitting in culture/Knitting in fiction article (or whatever title is most suitable) would be appropriate, but there is nothing at the page presently under discussion that would be of any use whatsoever for that. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Knitting or ideally a "Knitting in X" article as @TompaDompa: mentioned. I was initially planning on !voting weak delete given the only reasonably non-self published material covering this I could find was this from The Believer (magazine) and this from the Port Jefferson Library, but after reading over @Daranios:'s reply, I'll support keeping it on the site in some form, but I don't think there's grounds for keeping the standalone list on the site, as Tompa put it. --PixDeVl yell talk to me! 00:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PixDeVl, out of curiosity, what content would you recommend merging? The list is extremely poorly formatted with copious misuse of external links, and I don't think its material is usable anywhere on Wikipedia in its current state. An article being messy is not a reason to delete it, but it is very much a reason to not merge its content. — Anonymous 01:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @An anonymous username, not my real name: Thinking over, really it's more a merge of concept then info, since unless more sources can be found regarding those characters specifically(possible!), the only good sources I've seen are the Believer and Port Jeff ones I linked above(neither of which are used in the list being discussed), which could be used to make a small section on knitting in culture with examples on the Knitting article, IMO. I do think finding enough sources for Knitting in culture would be best overall. PixDeVl yell talk to me! 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Knitting was so common back then, of course some characters would do it. All the references I click on are dead links, so I can't see if this was a significant trait or just a passing mention. Are these major characters that have things written about their knitting at times in the books they are in? Dream Focus 06:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Would you perhaps like to check out the sources listed above to answer your question? Daranios (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Knitting as a concept in fiction may be notable, but characters knitting seems to be less so. As it stands, this list doesn't meet notability guidelines for its given topic, and there's no content worth preserving, meaning a move wouldn't be viable either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extreme case of poorly written proof for WP:NOTTVTROPES. Badly formatted, badly referenced, not encyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 2nd and 3rd sources found by MCE89 are titled "Worsted, Weave, and Web: The Cultural Struggles of the Fictional Knitting-Woman" and "Women Knitting: Domestic Activity, Writing, and Distance in Virginia Woolf's Fiction". Both "knitting-woman" and "women knitting" refer to knitters, even if not using that word. One of the sources found by Astaire is titled "An Incomplete Survey of Fictional Knitters". (Thank you to two Delete !voters for finding sources!) The book Sock that Daranios found appears to have 5 or 6 pages on knitters in literature (I can only see snippets). So four sources that discuss knitters in fiction. It also seems clear that there are enough sources for an article on knitting in fiction, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was enough for knitting as protest (eg [4]), which is not yet even mentioned in the Knitting article. This list definitely needs improvement (removing external links and providing some context would be a good start), but doesn't need deleting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources that are being mentioned might be useful in creating a completely new article or article section on the broader concept of knitting in fiction, but do not do anything to justify or support a itemized list of specific fictional characters that have knitted. And as this particular list is a poorly written list with no sources to justify the entries or context to allow readers to actually glean any information from, there is, as said by Pokelego999, no content here worth preserving. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen. I'm surprised to find that sources exist and have been presented. The current status of the article, and whether or not it is indiscriminate, may be remedied by regular editing, and hence no policy-based reason for deletion remains. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the WP:NOT issues could in fact be remedied by regular editing or are inherent to the concept would seem to be a point of contention here. If one takes the position that they are inherent to the concept, then WP:DELREASON#14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia—still remains as a policy-based reason for deletion. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way would NOT apply to this list that could not be remedied by regular editing? Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • The argument would be that this is fundamentally not appropriate for a list approach, and that the steps that could be taken to end up with an acceptable article on a similar topic (which would then have a different title and entirely different contents) does not constitute regular editing of this article. There seems to be broad support for a knitting in literature prose article (or corresponding section in the main knitting article), as noted. TompaDompa (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not a WP:NOT argument, and hence not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, it is. You don't have to agree that it applies in this particular instance, but "this is fundamentally not appropriate" is precisely what WP:NOT is for. WP:NOT is not exhaustive, nor is it meant to be. TompaDompa (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              • Entirely incorrect. NOT is exhaustive, and must be, because it is a policy trump card against inclusion. It doesn't get to be ambiguous, and what you've stated doesn't appear to me to be listed under any of its explicitly listed cases. Think about it: if NOT meant this is fundamentally not appropriate, then IDONTLIKEIT becomes a policy-based argument. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                Since we agree that this article is now improved, the discussion of the policy is not a showstopper for this AfD; it'd be best at another forum really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:NOT says Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive. That is to say, there are things that are generally recognized as falling under WP:NOT, and other things were that classification is subject to debate. Even if WP:NOT were exhaustive, WP:DELREASON explicitly isn't (Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following [...]). TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been continuously improved since the AfD opened, and is still happening, so a further week's discussion would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I broadly agree with TompaDompa that a prose article along the lines of Knitting in literature would be far better than a list of knitters. We already have an 'Analysis' section here; the elements of the list can be folded into a text discussion. In particular, there are plentiful reliable sources on knitting in Virginia Woolf's fiction; I doubt if any other author's treatment of knitting has received so much attention. Once the prose article is developed, we can choose a better title to match the contents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been changed considerably. Although it truly could be considered a stub, the sources now show that there is academic discussion of the role of knitting in literature. Because the article is no longer a list; the title "Knitting in literature" would be more appropriate. It should be referenced from the knitting article. I wouldn't merge because I suspect that the article will grow considerably. If it doesn't, a future decision to merge would make sense. Lamona (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Knitting in literature. The article has been converted to a prose article by me, Daranios, and Chiswick Chap, and is actively being developed further. This is effectively equivalent to deletion and recreation in a different format, seeing as the entirety of the contents at the time of nomination have been replaced. I think it is clear now that this would not be a good fit as a section in the main knitting article as it is growing too lengthy for that to be a good option. TompaDompa (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Knitting in literature. This is now a case of WP:HEY. Daranios (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone WP:SNOW close this please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2025 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_knitters_in_literature
No tags for this post.