Deletion of Lists of 100 best books

Comment: the subject of this discussion is whether this topic can demonstrate sufficient notability through coverage in RS as to warrant an article. That is clearly the case: the https://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/494P41NCbVYHlY319VwGbxp/explore-the-list-of-100-novels-that-shaped-our-world twice, in fact), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/08/books.booksnews Guardian, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544033/The-top-100-books.html Telegraph, https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=s9_acss_bw_cg_BOTY17_1b1_w?node=17296221011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-5&pf_rd_r=Z61HEF7461B746WTJA7D&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=5868d9a5-4040-4672-b513-b308ecbd94c1&pf_rd_i=17276804011 Amazon, https://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/slide/times-list-of-the-100-best-novels/#all Time Magazine, etc. The real discussion is what the page title shold be, and the inclusion parameters of the material: and the place for both of these discussions is on the talk page, |not here. Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)