The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of 100 best books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list is full of loosely related topics. They may have similar subjects, yet they are unrelated in any way. It's like making a list called "list of top 10 videos". There are millions, yet the topic itself is not noteworthy. Therefore, the list fails the criteria for inclusion

Also, the "100 best book" topic appears to be original research, due to the fact that I couldn't find any article on the actual genre of "100 best books". This also proves my point, the list does not comply with our guidelines. Koridas 📣 06:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator. Setting criteria for such an article is necessary (per WP:LSC), but not attempted and probably impossible for an article with this title. An article on List of books considered the best (an article entitled List of books considered the worst already exists) may fare better as a premise. Domeditrix (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/develop further. We categorize these in Category:Top book lists, a subcategory of Category:Top lists (whether or not they have 100 entries). We do index articles, and if we can categorize a group then we are capable of listing that same group by the same criteria. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Nika2020 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Restricting to lists that contain 100 items each is oddly artificial. I'd be fine with a List of lists of top books (or something like that) which takes Category:Top book lists and provides some added value, like being able to see at a glance when the list was published. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of top book lists would match the category the closest, and be more clear that the subjects to be listed are top book lists. postdlf (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that sounds good. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of top book lists (to reduce arbitrariness) and build out with Category:Top book lists. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Because of the history behind lists of 100 great books, I think it is easier to define what belongs on a list of "lists of 100 best books" than it would be to define appropriate inclusion for a list of "lists of top books," especially since basically every publication makes constant lists of the X top books of Y category. I also think better sourcing exists for the "100 best books" framing. The idea of distilling literature down into "100 best" books that everyone should then have access to read is a specifically British Victorian effort which has continued to influence literary culture. This journal article could be a useful source for context, especially regarding Sir John Lubbock's 1897 "100 Best Books" that started the phenomenon. (Lubbock's list is fascinating btw) In other words, 100 is an arbitrary cutoff, but it's an arbitrary cutoff tied to a specific and meaningful historic tradition. The current article does not satisfactorily provide this context of course, but I think actual sourcing does exist for the concept of lists of 100 "best" or "great" books, independent of specific lists, whereas I think such sourcing is less likely to exist for the idea of "top" books. Other potential sources for this list could be Jay Satterfield's “The World's Best Books”: Taste, Culture, and the Modern Library, John Guillory's Cultural Capital, maybe Rubin's Making of Middlebrow Culture, maybe this article for contemporary details... looking over these sources briefly I would also support changing the article to "Lists of 'great' books" to capture this phenomenon. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For further sourcing, this article is a brief history of "100 best books" lists, and this article explores the impact of a particular "100 best" list. There may still be too many feasible entrants for this list of lists, so additional selection criteria may be needed (lists with secondary coverage, like Lubbock's?) but I think the core concept is sound. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename / weak keep as top book lists. So far this looks to be discriminate. "100" seems arbitrary as an inclusion criteria, but hopefully this won't devolve into all kinds of random web links. Archrogue (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any of the typical reasons that we have a list served by this article - e.g. I can find no evidence that this topic is covered as a set by RS. I would expect to see more of the kinds of sources Oulfis linked to if this were truly a notable topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The list is certainly WP:IMPERFECT. However it may fulfill the purposes outlined in WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. a list of lists of "best" books is notable however I wonder how a book makes it on the individual lists - I did not check them individually. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename and expand- to my surprise I found that this list, though slightly fancrufty, does perform a useful navigational purpose. I'm not sure restricting it to lists of specifically 100 books is useful: there are doubtless similar lists containing 50, or 25, or some other number, that could usefully be part of this one. For example, Honkaku_Mystery_Best_10, and I'm sure there are others. Reyk _YO! 14:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I’ve realised that the great books article actually covers a lot of the material that I am familiar with for 100 books lists (though oddly it doesn’t mention Lubbock; I’ll fix that eventually) — so this list of lists needs to do something separate that can stand on its own. That might be the navigational task discussed above; I feel very lukewarm about this list overall... ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 02:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename and expand per Reyk and XOR'easter.   // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per sugestion.★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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 BBC (twice, in fact), Guardian, Telegraph, Amazon, 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. ——Serial 11:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.