Deletion of List of important publications in theoretical computer science

Comment: and rename to Bibliography of Theoretical Computer Science.  Lots of sources have listed (grouped) books related to Theoretical Computer Science.  See http://www.google.com/search?q=Bibliography+of+Theoretical+Computer+Science&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADFA_en Bibliographies of Theoretical Computer Science.  Clearly meets ist criteria for notability of lists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

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: I don't find the arguments from general principles (/) above compelling.  The question is, can this list ''in principle'' be referenced in a way that meets our core principles?  I have no doubt that it can (see my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics|here, mutatis mutandis).  Certainly nothing that the delete !votes have said to this point in the AfD argues against the impossibility of finding such sources.  (Lacking objectivity?  We have plenty of subjective information in the encyclopedia.  We just  and use sources.  I see no reason that wouldn't work here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:ASF)

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: 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: 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.  Improve, don't delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: passes  with multiple reliable sources discussing substantial subsets of this list. I have no doubt that the Gödel prize which seems to be awarded for such lankmarks is a good source. Others have pointed out more that more extensive list exist in print. There is no requirement that a single source cover ''all'' the entries in this article. 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)