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

The result of the discussion was Delete in their current form, but the discussion shows openness to books of featured articles that are of manageable size and organized in some fashion other than just an alphabetical listing. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Book:Featured Articles

• Book:Featured Articles

This was created a while ago and have not since been updated to remove delisted articles, nor add newly listed articles. They also are utterly random, their only organization is by alphabetical placement. Finally, they are unusable as printable books, as they are between 75 and 100 articles, meaning that they are likely over 800 pages in a printed book form, and thus would be split in half automatically if sent to print. Long and short of it is that this is easily replaceable by just reading Wikipedia:Featured articles and selecting the articles you're interested in. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• I'm not opposed to such a listing in theory, however the current books are completely outdated and unmaintained. I support deleting the current versions, and if an automated way to keep these books up to dateis found (or someone is willing to maintain them), they could be recreated without prejudice. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed, provided that the books are kept at a limit of between 25 and 50 articles a book (pick a number and lock it in, rather than allowing it to just creep up over time,) to ensure that the books will be usable. No point in having a book that is too large to download or print. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • So would the pages be listed chronologically then? Wouldn't we rather have it organised by topic? —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 16:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Either's a possibility. Topical would probably make more sense than chronological. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. —  Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 16:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Klein zach 07:44, 7 March 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.