Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete Works of Shakespeare

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 speedy keep per criteria 1, "absence of delete rationale." But snowball would likely also apply. SouthernNights (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Works of Shakespeare[edit]

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

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

Some of the collections of Shakespeare works listed here notable, but I don't think the concept of collecting all of Shakespeare works in one place should have its own article. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding it hard to imagine a reason grounded in policy and common practice why this topic wouldn't benefit from a page. At least some of the items in the list are blue links, ones that aren't (and even some that aren't on the list yet) have received reviews [1][2][3][4][5], the general merit of publishing these volumes has been discussed [6][7], different realizations of the goal have been compared [8], performances of the whole thing can be an event, and scholars are known for their work on editing such collections [9]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criterion 1: no policy-based deletion rationale has been articulated. On the merits, the above rationale is convincing regardless. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess LIST would be what we'd look at here? None of the list items are sourced here, but most are blue-linked, so they do have articles which I presume are adequately sourced. Not sure if we need a list of books that all cover the same topic, without any source of discussion around the merits of each. I'm sure this would be useful to some, I'm not sure what purpose it serves in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST. I suppose it has merit under the cross-category listings it has. I feel like I'm talking in cirlces. Keep I suppose is what my !vote is. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter and Jclemens. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with XOR'easter. AndyJones (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2023 (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.