Deletion of List of important publications in medicine

Comment: The main argument for deleting this list is nullified because a reference is provided for the list ''as a group'' () in the lead section
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Two reasons. Firstly the term "important" cannot be objectively determined. We don't have a "list of beautiful people". I've read Geometry guy's comments and don't buy his argument in this regard. We can find reliable sources that say someone is beautiful. The key is that the "important" is explicit rather than implicit and the scope is way too large. One could produce a Timeline of cardiology that included key findings over the years. Or a History of evidence-based-medicine that discussed the landmark studies. For those it is reasonable to cite our reliable sources and use them per  to determine inclusion. One might even, for a narrow scope, find a publication that provides the list entries in one go. The second reason is that the items in this list aren't homogeneous. The first section contains historical texts that collect medicial wisdom of the age or author. The later section contains the publication of landmark studies. It is actually the studies that are the notable fact. Nobody cares much about the study text or the publication they were within. So is this a collection of great medical texts or a collection of groundbreaking medical research studies? For our purposes, the word "publications" isn't helpful then. We're left with "List of ... medical ..." There are better ways to list this sort of information. Let's delete this one as unhelpful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

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: as per  and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_important_publications_in_mathematics&curid=33269547&diff=453602133&oldid=453556809 per extensive comments and examples by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

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)

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

Comment: This is not , for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics.  I noticed that some of the entries have citations which establish the importance of the entry, while others don't.  This is an argument for improving the citations, not for deleting
Stance: keep
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: The topic of the article is certainly encyclopedia-worthy (although the word "important" does not seem to do the topic justice: perhaps "landmark" is better).  For instance, I don't think there can be any serious argument that ''De materia medica'' or the writings of Hypocrates are not "landmark" publications.  The general arguments (/) above are not compelling.  The question is, can a list on this topic ''in principle'' be referenced in a way that meets our core principles?  A quick Google search for "Landmark publications in medicine" turns up many promising sources on which to base an article (e.g., "Science and Technology in Medicine: An Illustrated Account Based on Ninety-Nine Landmark Publications from Five Centuries").  As for the subjectivity of the inclusion criteria, we have plenty of subjective articles without a problem: we just  and use sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:ASF)