Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of books

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. WP:SNOW. Could also have been a speedy keep, as the nominator's description of this list has nothing to do with its actual contents or scope. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of books

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

WP:NOT The reasoning for this page is supposedly to include every book which is used as a WP:RS on wikipedia.The mechanism is inappropriate. 20040302 (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a reasonable list article, useful for navigation, and doesn't violate WP:L. All the entries are valid Wikipedia pages, and the grouping is logical. I'm not sure I understand the reason for deletion: this is a list of lists, not a list of books, and there's no attempt to list every book mentioned in WP on this page. (If an individual list of books isn't valid, it should be AfDed and removed from this list.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The focus of the article has changed since it was created. As it stands, it is important within the context of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. Robina Fox (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, this is rather a good list and wholly appropriate. I think these sorts of thing are normally called "List of lists of..." although "Lists of ..." is also used (and for me is more elegant). But the title is of no concern here. Thincat (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I don't understand the nom's rationale; it's extraordinarily useful; doesn't seem to violate any rules; has many other similar articles on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly standard list of lists article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too don't understand the nom's rationale for deletion as the article patently is not intended to "include every book which is used as a WP:RS on Wikipedia". It is a useful and well-organized list that is within policy. BabelStone (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nomination is incorrect. Siuenti (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. This looks like a perfectly legitimate article to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2013 (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.