Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -  The   Magnificentist  08:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An obvious pot-boiler of a book, the genre "1001 things for you to worry about" has been a staple for some years. This is not a canonical list of important books, it's just a handy title to stock a bookshop before Christmas. Its lack of canon status is evidenced by the fact that after publication, it was changed so that nearly a third of these "crucial" books were replaced.

Merge to its editor's article at Peter Boxall (academic) (where this article wasn't even linked beforehand). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that even the publisher has given up on maintaining their own website. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NBOOK #1, and the arguments for deletion are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. It's written by a reasonably high-ranking academic (Peter Boxall (academic)) with an introduction by Peter Ackroyd, which makes it more than just a hacky toilet-book. The fact that a reference book is revised is also not a reason for deletion. Also, if you want to propose a merge, you don't take this to AfD, so along with the lack of valid reasons for deletion, this should be closed on procedural grounds. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Argument that the publisher has given up maintaining their website is a business decision by the publisher and no reason to remove the title. There is evidence that people are still using this list (see Goodreads group which is quite active). And if nothing else this book is a historical document by an academic and has a number of reviews in places such as the Guardian and NY Times and in the future will be a good look at what was being read in the early 21st century. I would like to expand the article (and it is on my project list).Jaldous1 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colapeninsula.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't realise being "canon" was a requirement—so subsequent editions changed the list, so what? Likewise with shuttering the website of the series, that's purely a business decision and doesn't render a book published 11 years ago as non-notable. Dismissing it as a "pot-boiler" seems a matter of opinion, and not a sound reason for deletion. Written/edited by notable academic and published by large publishing house. --Canley (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, a number of reviews available online including by The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Age, i note that the first afd was deemed keep with a large majority of editors backing keep with an editor citing the above reviews, would like to direct the nominator to WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Piling here, I see, but wanted to thank Coolabahapple for doing what everyone above should have done. Save the screed and show the sources: three dedicated reviews from major publications is enough to write a dedicated article on the subject. Deletion should have always been out of the question since the title makes for a fine redirect to the author's page. It wouldn't be so bad to cover it there summary style anyway. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  17:40, 10 July 2017 (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.