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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is so broad, it is inconceivable that any treatment could do it justice. -- RoySmith(talk) 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAll peer-reviewed biological journals & influential papers & text books related to biology? A list this large would be useless to a researcher. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Tone 12:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (aeropagitica). — Rebelguys2talk 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (aeropagitica) SorryGuy 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a list of all publications. It is a list of important publications. All that is needed is for the Biology community here to decide on criteria for importance. This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. --Bduke 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. These are the key publications, the criteria for inclusion are clearly noted. There are several similar articles with key texts as well, see for example List of publications in mathematics. --Salix alba (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently and insolubly PoV, and unmaintainable, but useful information. Conditional Keep, but only in WP namespace. Septentrionalis 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salix. -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (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.