Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology
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
— User:Have, 22:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:LISTN||WP:SNOW (Wikipedia:Notability)