Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours

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 delete.  Sandstein  12:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours

List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Absolutely silly criterion for inclusion; this has little to no relevance on novels as a whole, and there are absolutely no sources. In fact, I don't see how it CAN be sourced. It'd be like having "List of novels whose first word is 'the'" or "List of novels with under 50 chapters" -- just willy nilly random stuff like that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SALAT and WP:GNG. Nonnotable intersection of topics for which no reliable sources are evident. Deor (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete none of the novels articles i checked on showed referenced sources that the book took place in 1 day (most book articles here are utter crap). i know of one such novel, "Ulysses". I also dont see any indication that this is a notable intersection. where are the books or articles examining this phenomenon of 24 hr novels? maybe someone is willing to userfy and incubate this list, as its just horrible right now and may not be salvageable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As a defining characterstic and prune the non-notable entries. See also the CfD page, too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting, and maybe even important, but not suitable for an encyclopedia since it is based on original research. Better to find sources that have discussed this issue and write an article, not a list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep I think that it has the potential to be sourced, and that it's not "absolutely silly" (there's a television show called 24 that operates on that type of storytelling premise). We have an entire category with the equally awkward title Category:Books which are set within one day, and it seems to have a lot of entries, so the premise isn't a rarity. I imagine that there will be some people who say "we have a category, who needs a list", but no need to go down that narrow avenue. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If they do, they can be slapped with a good dose of WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Move As the one who started the list a long time ago (although the title was different then, as were Wikipedia policies), I suggest we move the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours. All the questions concerning verifiability and whether it should be included at all have been addressed numerous times before, with exactly the same arguments and counterarguments as here (see, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/List of literary works with eponymous heroines). In no respect is such a list more random than any other, and it is very helpful to the student of literature if they want to work on narrative time versus time narrated. It seems to me that people who don't read novels or do so only for pleasure can't appreciate this fact. <KF> 08:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as the creation entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources can be found (I can't find any) which indicate that this has been used as a way to classify novels into a coherant group by someone else. No prejudice against moving to wikiproject space as suggested above. Guest9999 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, what do you mean by "no prejudice (?)"? No objection? <KF> 11:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry about my poor (now corrected) spelling, I'm using a temporary replacement computer and have obviously become over reliant on the Firefox spell checker. To answer your question, yes I mean no objection. Guest9999 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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.