Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in philosophy (2nd nomination)
Although I was initially a fan of this list, and lists like it, I'm afraid I have become disillusioned.  I think the primary purpose for this list is that it can provide a reading list for people interested in a particular topic.  In this respect, I think the reader would be better served by an appropriately referenced and complete article on a given topic (as KSchutte has already mentioned). Doing this is better because  it presents the material in context, allowing the reader to see in what ways individual pieces have been influential.  I am concerned about the dangers of |bias in a list like this.  Judging influence objectively in any discipline is very hard, especially so in a discipline like philosophy where there are many different "camps" who often attempt to reduce the importance of people from the other camps.  Even when not intended, bias of this sort will have a substantial impact.  Because we don't have representatives from all of the different philosophical movements who are active on wikipedia (much less this list), I don't think the "averaging of POVs" strategy will pan out here.  This is especially true since the reaction of many people will be to include as much as possible in the list, thus reducing its usefulness to readers.  I'm afraid that I don't think that this list can ever provide a fair representation of what it purports to do.  --''best, kevin
— User:Kzollman, 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)