Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of 100 best books
the subject of this discussion is whether this topic can demonstrate sufficient notability through coverage in RS as to warrant an article. That is clearly the case: the https://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/494P41NCbVYHlY319VwGbxp/explore-the-list-of-100-novels-that-shaped-our-world twice, in fact), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/08/books.booksnews Guardian, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544033/The-top-100-books.html Telegraph, https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=s9_acss_bw_cg_BOTY17_1b1_w?node=17296221011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-5&pf_rd_r=Z61HEF7461B746WTJA7D&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=5868d9a5-4040-4672-b513-b308ecbd94c1&pf_rd_i=17276804011 Amazon, https://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/slide/times-list-of-the-100-best-novels/#all Time Magazine, etc. The real discussion is what the page title shold be, and the inclusion parameters of the material: and the place for both of these discussions is on the talk page, |not here. Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129
— [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|'''S'''erial]], 11:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)