Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous books and novels

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 given the broad scope and strong arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous books and novels[edit]

List of famous books and novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

"Famous" is too subjective, and the described scope of this list is too broad.Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, please, and as quickly as possible. There are thousands of "famous books and novels"; this article could never be complete. --Nonstopdrivel 23:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Drivel. This is yet another "0–9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z" list that is supposed to be expanded by subsequent visitors. The author means well, and my 9th grade English teacher, Mrs. Midkiff, had a similar list for book reports. However, this doesn't belong here anymore than my grocery list does. Mandsford 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as an inherently subjective and unmaintainable list. Someguy1221 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As creator, I obviously believe this should stay, even though I am sure everyone will vote against me, I'll still give it a shot. --Hardworker111 09:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it has value and will be used by people who search for "lists" as one approach to a subject. (I do!) --Stormbay 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "famous" is too broad and subjective a list inclusion criterion, and make this article indiscriminate. --Haemo 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Its a little too broad, but it could be helpful for people trying to be directed to books of this sort. Barn Stork 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's harmless and it's useful are irrelevant arguments for inclusion. We have list of books for anyone who wants to search for "lists of books." But without a clear definition of "famous," this list is merely an arbitrary collection of information, which may also be considered original research due to its subjectivity. If you want the article to stay, please provide criteria for "famous" against which each entry could be verified. Alternatively, you could create a List of award winning books, although there are quite a few literary awards. If anyone wished to take up this daunting task, they could create this as a list of lists of award winners, broken down by award won, and type of literature. Pulitzer prize is already such a list. Someguy1221 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retaliatory Comment. it appears that your "comment" is being used purely to persuade people to vote on your side, it has weak support, just a dialogue to help "attack" the voters that are for the page's comments. But i guess you're just trying to help so oh well. Barn Stork 02:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Firstly, AFD is not a vote. Secondly, should I instead be trying to persuade people to "vote" for something I disagree with? Someguy1221 03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not at all, just thought I'd point it out. Also, chill with the "official" lingo in this situation, trying to make me look like a fool. its a vote and you know it, regardless of alternate titleization. Barn Stork 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reason this isn't a vote is that the result is not dependent on majority rules. Someguy1221 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True. but can you tell me aproximately what percent of the time, something that has more "votes" does not occur, and the opposite resulting occurs and overturns the majority? Barn Stork 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Small, but most AFDs are somewhat one-sided. Someguy1221 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fair enough I suppose. Barn Stork 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent for reasons of sanity)


  • Delete. "Famous" is too POV. One could argue that all books listed on Wikipedia are famous because they are notable (otherwise they shouldn't be here!). Lists of books is perfectly fine for anyone searching for a notable book. -- MightyWarrior 09:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Hardworker (author) Not that your effort isn't appreciated, but if you're going to do something like this, I suggest these rules (1) My favorites rule: look beyond yourself for sources; many an organization has compiled and published its list of books, and refer to those-- that which may seem to you to be "common sense" is still one person's point of view (POV) if you can't show that it's the POV of many persons.

(2) Trebek's rule: generic titles are meant for game shows, not academia; (3) Famous fried chicken rule: the fewer franchises there are in a chain of chicken restaurants, the more likely that the chain will describe its product as being "famous". Who's famous? Mark Twain's famous, but so are Sue Grafton, Louis Lamour, Nora Roberts, etc. I think that your own defense of your article-- "obviously, I'm in favor" signals that you had your doubts on this one too. Save it on your harddrive, and don't let the experience deter you. First time I had an article deleted, I wasn't happy either, but in retrospect, I can see the other side to this. Mandsford 13:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Can we change the title and keep the article? I hate to see good work go away and 15 stubs done in 35 minutes by a likely one time editor stay because of the "notability" standard for his/her type of article. --Stormbay 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put so much hard work into this page. I think its ridiculous how weeks of editing to make this page better is simply going to be deleted becaus esome people don't agree with it. Thats all I have to say, do what you will with the page. And thanks everyone who is satnding up for the page, it means a lot to me. Hardworker111 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compassionate response: I feel your pain, but unfortunately, "I put a lot of work into it" isn't a good argument for inclusion. I support WP:USERFYing this article so that a monument to your labor may be preserved and perhaps converted into an appropriate, encyclopedic form later. --Nonstopdrivel 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I take "famous" for "notable" in WP parlance (and if kept ought to be removed from the article name). It is utterly unmaintainable and articles will huge numbers of members are best handled by categories, unless something special about the members is being conveyed in the list; there isn't here, however, so it ought to go. Carlossuarez46 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read this 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die and compare it to your list. Maybe you did some hard work in trying to come up with the ulitmate list before you posted it. It went up earlier this month, and you added to it. But when somebody else tried to add to the list, you deleted some of those additions when you didn't agree with them. Can you not see that, without citing to published lists, this compilation simply represents your own personal opinion? Not that I disagree with your choices, but are anyone else's choices less important than yours? Mandsford 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course certain choices are less important. Now that I'm looking through the history, I take note on the fact that certain books have to be deleted because they clearly are not very notable. The Name of the Rose strikes me as one such example that was removed. Though I did read the book, not many people would know of it just by hearing the title, so clearly that one addition just did not live up to par. I see what you're saying about it being "too opinionated" and that may be true, but there are certainly books that do not deserve a spot on the lsit, and hardworker did the right thing in those situations. He even said if you disagree feel free to change it back, meaning he/she wasn't banishing anything from the list permenently. Barn Stork 24:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is way too indiscriminate, as there are thousands of famous books and novels. Because fame is very subjective, this list is very hard to maintain and possibly contentious. The fact that the article's creator maintains very odd standards for adding and removing books (e.g.: "This book is not famous because it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia", "I've never heard of this book"), doesn't help matters.--Atlan (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because useful reference and convenient, but should add such references as that 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die for each book entered, i.e. something as a source that proves fame of books and novels. --164.107.222.23 00:17, 28 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_books_and_novels&oldid=1138009990"