Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bildungsroman examples (post-1930)

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. Sandstein 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bildungsroman_examples_(post-1930)[edit]

The "Pre-1930" version of this list has already been deleted. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bildungsroman examples (pre-1930)‎ noit (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really think a list of examples is encyclopedic, either list them all or don't have the list, just giving "examples" is highly subjective. Note that this article seems to have the same problem as the pre-1930 list; referencing is few and far between and this sort of claim really needs to be referenced to be meaningful. --Rividian (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list, unencyclopedic, no clear membership criteria (OR). JJL (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "List of examples" is inherently unencyclopedic for a stand-alone list. Not even if the classification were referenced and it could be verified that the list is representative of the class. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully, for the reasons I gave at the AfD linked in the nomination. AndyJones (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a case where the information would be much better presented as a category than a list.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Fabrictramp. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (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.