Deletion of List of important publications in mathematics

Comment: The nominator has not actually given a policy-based reason for deletion.  Comparison with other deleted pages is irrelevant as per .  This article has plenty of references, and can be improved if necessary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: I would like Exit2Dos2000 to please articulate a clear position on why  suggests that this article should be deleted, including the kinds of searches (library, Google, etc.) that has led him or her to this conclusion (). The insinuated snippets inserted after others' comments above have not made this case at all clear to me.  On the contrary, it seems to me that the topic grouping ("Important publications in mathematics...") is evidently notable, based on any number of searches.  There are entire books on this subject (see comments already made).  Other sources include Grattan-Guinness' several books on this topic and Bellman's text on mathematical classics (in analysis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: It is a fundamental principle of wikipedia that the editors are capable of determining issues of notability. In this instance, the question that arises is "Is this paper notably important?". This kind of criterion for inclusion on a list is explicitly provided in , which in fact goes on to state that: "Most of the Wikipedia:FL|best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." If the rationale for deletion is that this list can't be compiled without OR, then  contradicts this rationale in this instance because it is indeed possible to assess the notability of mathematics writings through secondary sources. Furthermore, as a side comment, the notability of the list itself, per , is substantiated by books such as Ivor Grattan-Guinness's well-respected http://books.google.com/books?id=UdGBy8iLpocC Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LSC||WP:LSC||WP:LISTN)

Comment: This and related articles have clearly been brought to AfD in the sincere belief that they should be deleted per . In one instance, a closing admin essentially discounted editors' comments, because of his view that such articles are "''inherently ''". I disagree: in my view, which is clearly shared by many other editors here, such an application of  is misguided
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:OR||WP:NOR)

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

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: and rename to Bibliography of Mathematics.  There are countless sources here http://www.google.com/search?q=Bibliography+of+Mathematics&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADFA_en#q=Bibliography+of+Mathematics&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ADFA_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4401fd2d574ff806&biw=1097&bih=567 Bibliographies of Mathematics that discuss books related to math as a group (duh a bibliography).  Bibliographies are permitted by ist.  Indeed if individual entries in this list cannot be sourced to a reliable bibliography or other source, they should be removed, but killing the whole list is absurd.  IMHO,  and its related guidelines are only unclear to those editors who have a avowed hatred of lists in general
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L||WP:list)

Comment: I was brought here by a thread over at WT:WPM, and I was expecting to see compelling arguments to delete this on the grounds of , which I came prepared to refute.  Happily, I see no compelling deletion arguments at all.  The article has many cleanup issues, and I think it needs to be about half of its current length, with better sources.  However, my reasons for voting keep are: (1) In some form, this list clearly satisfies a necessary niche in the encyclopedia (though perhaps "important" doesn't do the topic justice: "landmark" might be a better choice).  (2) The claim of  fails to identify any specific entries on the list.  Looking at the list, I have no doubt that it ''might'' contain some original research, but I think there can be no serious argument that there is a basic core there that is worthy of inclusion.  At the very least, entire books have been written that will attest to the significance of Euclid's ''Elements'', Newton's ''Principia'', or Gauss's ''Disquisiones''.  Furthermore, books like Ivor Grattan-Guinness's "Landmark writings in western mathematics" could be used as a general source for much of the article if necessary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR)