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 Move. Sufficient consensus exists to move the subject article to Deafness in children's literature, which was agreed to be a more accurate title. However, the article requires improvement, and I encourage the participants to spend some time on the new list in order to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards of quality. AGK [•] 11:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Literature for Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently this article was deleted but then recreated. I don't see the subject as notable in any way. To be honest, though, I really don't even understand what, exactly, this article is about. Also, I think that, if the article were to be kept, the list would have to be incorporated into prose. —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 04:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia's list topic policy is somewhat vague, but states the following about lists: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." Personally, I find the topic to be of limited interest, and most importantly, too open-ended to be successfully written. There are potentially thousands of books that children can read which contain reference to deaf people. I think that this article may be a violation of Wikipedia's noble cause guideline, which prohibits the creation of non-notable pages in order to promote a good cause (e.g., promoting awareness of deaf children). NJ Wine (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...potentially thousands of books"? Name three. (Without peeking at the article!) I just wrote Disability in children's literature, and research indicates that between 1940 and 1970, there were 311 children's books published in the U.S. that included characters with disabilities (various disabilities). Has there been a flood of new children's books about deafness in the past 40 years? Doubt it. Unsubstantiated hyperbole.OttawaAC (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Disability in children's literature is not a list. It actually explains a cultural change over time. NJ Wine (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and maybe rename- (No one can "violate" a guideline, a guideline is not a policy.) The list is notable, Wikipedia:Viability of lists indicates that a list is notable if the topic itself is notable. The portrayal of disability in children's literature is notable. But, I'd rename it "Deafness in children's literature". There's a lengthy article Disability in the arts that should link to this list, I'm going to add a link perhaps at the #Literature section. The list is short but could easily be expanded. If you're going to look at deleting a list as useful as this one, why not also take a look at deleting this list of a "notable" Romanian pornography film actresses' awards and nominations: List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain? No one seems to have challenged the existence of that one yet. Priorities! OttawaAC (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Viability of lists also states the following: "Just because a topic is notable, does not mean it needs a list. Common sense and consensus should prevail. ... While a List of U.S. Presidents is a good list idea, a List of U.S. Presidents with brown eyes is not because the listing of U.S. Presidents is quite small and grouping people by their eye color is almost unheard of." "Deafness in children's literature" seems like a contrived listing similiar to "U.S. Presidents with brown eyes", and there is no discussion in the article about the relevance of this topic. Unlike the article on disability in children's literature, it's just a list. I can think of endless theoretical lists (e.g., "environmentalism in children's literature", "animal rights in children's literature", "mental illness in children's literaure"), but it doesn't mean that we should create them. As for your example, if it came up for AfD, I would also vote to delete "Romanian pornography actresses' awards" for the same reason. NJ Wine (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Wine makes a very sound point. Even if there are numerous examples of deaf people in children's literature, doesn't mean we have to make a list of them. Subtopics of notable topics are not automatically notable. Deafness, Children's literature, and Deaf culture are notable, but that doesn't justify the inclusion of Deaf Literature for Children as a list in Wikipedia.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• merge into Disability_in_children's_literature, or failing that I'd certainly support a rename to 'Deafness in children's literature' which I think is a much much more accurate title. Fayedizard (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/comment - I concur with 'Deafness in children's literature' as a better name. I should say upfront that I have a hearing impairment, so any input I make may be perceived as biased, so not going to vote here. But I don't think the article itself ought to be deleted - certainly it needs to be drastically revised and rewritten as currently it is just a list of titles - and not even a comprehensive one. (Why no "Blue Boat" by Dick Bruna and Peter Jones, for example?) While I'd say the article as it stands is very poor, I think there is scope for an article on the subject, although a quick Google does throw up a number of articles on the subject elsewhere such as 1 which has links to other relevant sites on the subject, so maybe it isn't necessary to have an equivalent page on Wikipedia. Mabalu (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and,as has been suggested, rename to 'Deafness in children's literature' . There is sufficient material to start with, and it's been shown that more can be added. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 10 June 2012 (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.