Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die


 * 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. John254 23:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Books which are lists of foo you must read/do/see/eat/be aware of/have sex with before you die are something of a a staple these days, no trading season is complete without half a dozen of them. We have no sources for this one, and it's been tagged as such since June 2007 with no apparent attempt at cleanup. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. StAnselm (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nomination may sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this looks to fail [WP:N] to me. This book has won no awards and there is scant information on it. BananaFiend (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I would normally agree this article is not worth having, however there are 48 google news hits, some of which focus upon the book, so it has been discussed in reliable sources, and is notable.  special, random,  Merkinsmum  11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This book has cracked #18,000 total on amazon.com's sales ranking and is first in its category.    Ravenswing  17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to pass WP:BK, based on the newspaper reviews available at Google News. Zagalejo^^^ 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Merkinsmum. Plenty of coverage can be found via Google News. --Pixelface (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The bloody thing is in every bookshop, servo and shampoo here in Australia. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Even I've heard of this one, it's a prominent book. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Reviews and other sources must be added to the article or it can not be kept.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to help? If you add one source, I'll do the rest of the work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are a few I've found that mention the book, don't know how useful they are, they're formatted with the "cite X" templates, feel free to add any to the article. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 'References'
 * Keep Very well-known, certainly notable book. Lengthy reviews in The Observer, The Age, etc. --Canley (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (edit conflict) Some refs:


 * Keep. Yet another waste-of-time nomination from the master of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In the same time it took to create this AfD the nominator could have found sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

comment lack of refs in the article is not a deletion criteria- if they exist in reliable sources, the subject is notable, it just needs the refs added to it but that's grounds for a tag, not deletion.  Merkin's   mum  23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced. Appears to be original research.  Yahel  Guhan  05:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable book. - Pureblade  | Θ 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.