Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books considered the best

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=List of books considered the best}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=List of books considered the best}})

This article is not notable, probably used for advertisement of the books. Wikipedia is not for deciding which book is best. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:NLIST, as described in the article itself eg Time's List of the 100 Best Novels, Modern Library 100 Best Novels, The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English . The selection criteria is clear and reflects NPOV approach by relying explicitly on multiple RS for every entry; further RS could easily be added if it improves neutrality. I see no sign of WP:PROMO. Perhaps move to List of novels considered the best considering the topic. —siroχo 18:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• :I think it's relevant to mention that List of novels considered the greatest was actually deleted at AfD last July (link). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::I didn't participate there, but from the comments it appears that article had substantial problems that this one does not share. —siroχo 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd note that Time's List of the 100 Best Novels is sourced only to Time, Modern Library 100 Best Novels is weakly sourced (and cite 1 is a pretty good criticism that it only listed those it published), and The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English is mainly sourced to the Guardian! I'll suggest merging all of these, along with others listed at List of top book lists which are similarly short or poorly sourced, into a single article. Maybe maintain that article and just have subsections about each list, and another section that includes those named on multiple lists. I mean, List of films considered the best has been kept seven times, but it's structured quite differently, but just because those rankings exist doesn't mean this article meets NLIST as it is. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• :I do like this plan, I think it could be a solid article that would improve the state of all the articles you're mentioning, including this one. As it's too complex an outcome for AfD I will stick with my above !vote, but would support this proposal in a discussion (whether after a BOLD attempt, or as a proposal) —siroχo 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Despite the title, this is not a list of books considered the best. By its very construction ({{tq|The books listed here are included on at least three separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications, as chosen by their editorial staffs/authors.}}), it is a list of books considered among the best. I think it's highly dubious if that's a valid way of constructing the list in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be at this title. Contrast list of films considered the best, where each entry actually has been deemed the best (i.e. #1) by a notable poll. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest from last year. TompaDompa (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This exact debate has been had like 10 times about List of films considered the best, I don't see why the same reasonings wouldn't apply to books.★Trekker (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• If they were constructed the same way, I would agree. But they are not, they are constructed in completely different ways as outlined above. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• To me that seems like a good argument for why this article needs major changes, not deletion, unless we're talking a DYNAMITE case.★Trekker (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Well, maybe. But if we want a list of the same kind as List of films considered the best, we need new sources as only one out of five none (see below) of the sources used to construct List of books considered the best is a ranked poll. Time{{'}}s List of the 100 Best Novels (1) is neither ranked nor a poll, Dick Meyer's [https://www.npr.org/2009/05/07/103869541/100-years-100-novels-one-list 100 Years, 100 Novels, One List] (2) is ranked (though {{tq|The order is essentially silly.}}) but not a poll, Modern Library 100 Best Novels (3) is a ranked poll ranked but not a poll, The Daily Telegraph{{'}}s [https://web.archive.org/web/20090121144354/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/4248401/100-novels-everyone-should-read.html 100 Novels Everyone Should Read] (4) is ranked but not a poll, and The Guardian{{'}}s 100 Best Novels Written in English (5) is neither ranked nor a poll. That would leave us with only a single entry, the rest of the list needing to be scrapped. That is pretty much indistinguishable from starting over from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• :Keep in mind that books are different than films. Due to both the quantity of books produced in relation to films, as well as less need for demonstration of technical expertise in the use of tools, it's a lot harder to find objective criteria for the quality of books. As such, summarizing across secondary sources based on lists of 100 is probably a better tertiary analysis than to pick the top 1 from several secondary sources, when it comes to books.
• :While I think Reywas92's plan is possibly the best path forward after AFD, a subtle rename here would solve the issues. List of books considered among the best might work. —siroχo 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|As such, summarizing across secondary sources based on lists of 100 is probably a better tertiary analysis than to pick the top 1 from several secondary sources, when it comes to books.}} Again, maybe. It's certainly more of an WP:ANALYSIS, and I don't mean that as a positive. And when the sources are mostly not polls but what amounts to opinion pieces, it gets even more dubious—we're back to the issues that led to the previous discussion ending with the article being deleted. Are we suggesting that Lev Grossman (1), Richard Lacayo (1), Robert McCrum (5), Dick Meyer (2), and unnamed Telegraph staff (4) are that authoritative sources on this topic? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::I just realized that it's worse than I thought. Modern Library 100 Best Novels (3) is not one list but two—[https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/books/072098best-novels-list.html one] {{tq|drawn up by the editorial board of Modern Library}} (with Ulysses at #1) and [https://web.archive.org/web/20101003121836/http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/ one] {{tq|with 217,520 votes cast}} (with Atlas Shrugged at #1)—and the article uses the former (as evidenced by Sons and Lovers being noted in the article as appearing on the list [https://web.archive.org/web/20101002000620/http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/ when it only appears on the board's list]). So we actually have 0 ranked polls in use here, not 1. And I suppose we'll add unnamed people at the editorial board of Modern Library (named by The New York Times [https://web.archive.org/web/20190405212240/https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/20/books/ulysses-at-top-as-panel-picks-100-best-novels.html?mcubz=1 here]: Christopher Cerf, Gore Vidal, Daniel J. Boorstin, Shelby Foote, Vartan Gregorian, A. S. Byatt, Edmund Morris, John Richardson, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and William Styron) to the list of sources we are apparently saying are sufficiently authoritative to base this list on. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• :::Just to be clear regarding my thoughts, I don't mean original research, perhaps "tertiary analysis" is borrowing the wrong turn of phrase from the wrong discipline, I hope it's clear that I don't mean all-caps WP:ANALYSIS. By "tertiary analysis" what I mean is summarizing and consolidating secondary sources. —siroχo 01:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::::I figured you didn't mean it that way, but I think it qualifies. This article is not really summarizing sources on which books are the best (even disregarding the difference between novels and books), it's taking a handful of opinions, cross-referencing them, and listing the overlap as though it were some kind of critical consensus. The underlying method could conceivably be used to construct a list that meaningfully reflects the overall consensus, but it would require a way larger number of sources, a way more representative set of sources (the WP:Systemic bias on display here isn't exactly subtle: four out of five are explicitly limited to English-language works, the sole exception being the list by The Telegraph (4)—which isn't even a list of the 100 best but 100 "everyone should read"), and some robust statistical analysis—and then you are way into WP:Original research territory. TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. If kept, tag with {{tl|globalize}}, as this is a List of English-languageb ooks considered the best by English readers. Such a list would look different if we added input from French, German, Chinese, Japanese and so on sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, I did not mean for this to be an advertisement of certain books. I was merely trying to create a page for novels in the vein of List of games considered the best which uses critical consensus instead of one persons opinion. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak keep and rename List of novels considered among the 100 best. There is no single "best", just top 100, but they are considered as a group, satisfying NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

::To be factual, it is a List of novels on "100 best books" lists. Lamona (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete The article for Modern Library 100 Best Novels states at the beginning "Modern Library's 100 Best Novels is a 1998 list of the best English-language novels published during the 20th century, as selected by Modern Library from among 400 novels published by Random House, which owns Modern Library." So that's not independent. A publishing company tells you that the best 100 books you should buy are all published by them. Anyway, this list is pointless. Just listing which potentially bias sources put something on their top 100 book list, has no purpose here. To make content to publish, someone was told to make a list of 100 books, and they most likely never read most of them themselves, just looked up information elsewhere. Dream Focus 18:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rename to List of English novels considered the best. The lists include only novels and only those in English. The title should accurately reflect that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• :Well, you updated it and added years up to "2015". Should we consider it a list limited to those specific years? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete just create lists for each individual poll if they're that notable, we don't really need a weird SYNTH-y page that arbitrarily chooses five polls to decide its entries. AryKun (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.