Deletion of List of important publications in networks and security

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: keep
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 some references to establish the notability of the items on the list.  Improve, don't delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:NOTDIR|Wikipedia is not a directory of publications. This is |original research lacking objective inclusion criteria; remove the "importance" criteria, and we would be left with an article from which no topical publication could possibly be excluded, leading to a lengthy and  list. Depending on how one construes things,  may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to ''Further Reading'' sections of more specific articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTLINK)

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

Comment: Before stating one or two reasons that comply with our rules and regulations, let me state the main reason for me: (I am aware of .) It is an incredibly useful list. To me, it is so useful that it is the only article I watchlisted primarily in order to be informed of new developments, not in order to edit it. Apart from that, it is possible to reference those claims one by one because every once in a while an academic paper states that certain works are "important" or "groundbreaking". I am not sure such references would improve the readability of this list, but if they are required to fulfill  they can certainly be found. So if there is a problem at all, this can be solved by editing, rather than deleting. Geometry guy also makes excellent remarks http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_important_publications_in_mathematics&curid=33269547&diff=453602133&oldid=453556809 here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:NOR)

Comment: Whom'' |says what is '|Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself ''Ad infinitum'', all my reasoning is in the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology|List of important  AfD. Exit2DOS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV)