Deletion of List of important publications in geology

Comment: Rename to Bibliography of Geology. There are countless references to Bibliographies of Geology. The http://books.google.com/books?id=B2t2RAAACAAJ&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Geology&hl=en&ei=uVqLTrLJHM6FsAKaht3VBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg Encyclopedia of Geology alone ought to be proof enough that important works in geology have been listed and grouped.  Bibliographies are permitted by ist.  If a specific entry can't be sourced to a reliable bibliography then remove it, but killing the list is ill-concieved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: to ''List of '''notable''' publications in geology''. Determining ''importance'' without is |problematic. Notability we do every day here
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: passes  with multiple reliable sources discussing substantial subsets of this list. There is no requirement that a single source cover ''all'' of them. If this article simply copied such one source it would easily be a copyvio. The reason invoked for deletion is thus invalid, and I have little faith in the search abilities of the nominator who has posted identical reasons for deleting other similar lists, nominations which were closed as  keep. The talk about impossibility of an objective criteria that others have raised is solipsism. We include stuff in Wikipedia precisely because some author decide to write about it, whether he is "objective" (according to what standard?) or not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:SNOW)

Comment: A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in  is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using  as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on  to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:LISTN||WP:LIST)

Comment: This is not , for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics.  However, I note that this article does need further references to establish the notability of the items on the list.  (The existing references are for the authorship and description, but don't seem to establish importance.)  Improve, don't delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)