Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest 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   keep. (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

List of longest novels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This list violates OR by assuming what novels are longer than others. There's no citations for placement and the inclusion criteria don't fit the moniker for the article. Padillah (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Keep. The deletion reason "This list violates OR by assuming what novels are longer than others" is literally nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then provide a source listing any book on that list as being one of the "longest novels". Heck most of the "novels" on the list are not even novels but serial works that span years. Padillah (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does M. Gerard have to? Have you not read even the first source cited in the article, which does exactly that?  If not, why not?  Sources are cited to be read. Uncle G (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have read the first citation - it mentions one novel (not a list for comparison). And it displays criteria inconsistent with the article. The article meanwhile, has no explicit criteria at all. Padillah (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note this is not an article but a list, Sadads (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sources are provided. I'm not saying the page doesn't need work but it's certainly not a violation of OR. I'm honestly confused by the nominator's seemingly nonsensical reasoning, no offence.-- Brave  Dragon  22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)  This user is blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user — Gavia immer (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if anything, this is a pretty good example of an encyclopedic treatment of what, at first glance, may appear to be not an especially encyclopedic topic. Nominator's reasoning seems unclear at best. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unclear? Can you not see how compiling a list like this invites comparison and forces WP:SYNTH? Padillah (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a list, so independent sources devoid of a comprehensive list of longest to shortest are okay, Sadads (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All entries are sourced and clearly fit under the subject. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, the two first entries on the list are not sourced. The first even has a tag. on it right now. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just needs editing, and possibly a retitle. No reason to delete. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Edward321. WereWolf (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous !votes; not sure what exactly this nomination means, and it's beginning to look like WP:SNOW. — Chromancer  talk/cont 19:28, 7 September 2010 (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.