Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about bacon

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. Jclemens' arguments below are rather conclusive. The list only includes notable items, and the organizing concept of the list happens to define what all of those entries fundamentally are (these books are all about bacon). As noted below in the discussion, the notability of the list itself is irrelevant when it indexes notable topics in this manner, and per WP:CLN, lists as well as categories can be appropriate for organizing article content (see generally Category:Books by topic and Category:Lists of books by topic). postdlf (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about bacon[edit]

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

Non-notable topic and completely lacking in scope (and references). Fails general notability guidelines, notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, WP:NOTLINK/WP:NOTDIR, and probably several other guidelines or policies I failed to mention. Tiny esoteric topic, with a tiny esoteric list, that could probably be merged into a List of cookbooks, if such a thing existed. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable list that fails WP:LISTN. --NellieBly (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with this list: the topic is clearly defined, the list items are bluelinks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of this AfD has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each entry is bluelinked and half of them are GA-class! In this case, the fact that it passes LISTN can be derived from the list elements themselves: If there's enough sources to GA four separate books on Bacon, there's enough for a list of such books. Sure, it could work just fine as a category, but there's no reason per WP:CLN to move it to that. List criteria are distinct and need no cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the notability of the content of the list, just the notability of the list itself. If GA status of most members was all that was necessary to engender notability for a list, then we'd have a List of Harry Potter books that didn't redirect straight to Harry Potter. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 05:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different issue, because all those different books belong in one article. These are a diverse set of notable books linked by topic. There's not a whole lot more said about them at the moment, but that's no reason why the list couldn't be expanded to document e.g. bacon's resurgence in the face of a national diabetes/obesity epidemic in the US. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined inclusion critetia for a notable topic, that works hand-in-hand with the category (per WP:CLN). Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't, for the life of me, imagine how deleting this list could possibly make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, whatever interpretation anyone tries to put on any policies or guidelines, which are all subservient to the basic task of building an encyclopedia for the benefit of its readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree that the individual items of this list are fine alone, the Notability guidelines for stand alone lists clearly state that the list will be "considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" which I was unable to find for this particular list. SBHans13 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a navigational list, helping readers to find what they are looking for, rather than a stand-alone list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2011 (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.