Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of influential texts


 * 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 as an indiscriminate list. --Core des at 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

List of influential texts


Hopelessly POV, and there are thousands, no, millions of texts that could be potentionally put here. What is the definition of influential? Also, influential to whom? The Western World? Muslims? Feminists? Scientists? Militants? Consumerists societies? Socialists? Daoists? Stoics? These are a drop in the bucket of the idealogies and demographics by which billions of peoples' daily lives are affected. And each group could credibly point to hundreds, if not thousands, of influential texts that espouse these lifestyles - everything from poetry by Robert Frost, to the Kama Sutra, to the Iraqi constitution. There are many notable and influential texts for sure, but the Category:Literature would probably be someone's best bet to sort through such an incomprehensible list, and even that cat has a tag on top saying "This category requires continual maintenance to avoid becoming too large." But at least that cat has a fighting chance. This list will always be POV, random, inadequate and unfathomably large to the point of inutility.-- Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could be bigger than List of non-notable people. Delete.--humblefool&reg; 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: absurdly unmanagable. Sam Clark 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; this pretty much defines what a indiscriminate collection of information is. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Inherent POV and not really useful. Carlossuarez46 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Arbritrary point, listcruft, can never be complete, or more than just a list. Even if the criteria could be well defined it would suit better as catagory than an encylopedic article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:36, 11 November 2006 (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.