Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-TIME 100 Greatest Novels


 * 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 (WP:SNOW). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

All-TIME 100 Greatest Novels

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

An article with no substantive content. Basically fails WP:DICDEF; all the article does is say that TIME made a list of novels. The actual list of novels has been removed repeatedly by editors claiming it fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, and if the content of the list is trivial, what purpose can an article on the list itself serve? Chubbles (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that Time magazine published a list is not really that notable. The fact that criticism of the list is included when the only source cited is the list itself only adds to the silliness of the whole thing. (The list could be mentioned and linked in an article on 20th Century novels, or 21st Century as well.)Redddogg (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete These sorts of lists come out frequently. There is nothing in the article to explain why TIME's list is notable enough to justify an article. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notwithstanding that Duffbeerforme's "improvements" are easily negated, the article never should have been made in the first place. It was based on the opinions of two critics for TIME Magazine, who, in 2006, listed their choices for 100 great novels in alphabetical order.  Besides, no throwaway article about a magazine's Top 100 is complete unless it mentions the predictable letters that get published about three weeks later ("How could you pick a Top 100 and not mention ________"?)  Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:DICDEF. South Bay    (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't really think WP:DICDEF applies because it isn't just a definition for a word, it is a list (without the list part). In that case, I feel it fails WP:GNG and because it is two people's opinion of the greatest novels. Tavix | Talk  22:43, 13 April 2009 (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.