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, strong, clear, and unanimous consensus (apart from the nom) that this is an appropriate stand-alone article, particularly per WP:SPINOFF/WP:ARTICLESIZE. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage bibliography (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)

This is an absurd directory of works and TV appearances by someone of limited impact. Wikipedia is not a catalogue. The biographical information is available elsewhere on Wikipedia. His important contributions are mentioned in his biography. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also the feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1.

• Keep, modeled after the Featured List by Koavf (talk · contribs), the page George Orwell bibliography. I'm planning to work on this to get it to Featured List quality, and WP:FLC Director The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has helpfully agreed to act as mentor. — Cirt (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia has numerous lists and many are not in as good a shape or as informative as this one. MarnetteD | Talk 14:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep speaking purely on objective terms. I've got no clue about Dan Savage or whether the nominator's assessment of "limited impact" is right or wrong, but I took a lengthy look at the main article which itself is a weighty tome. For me, creating a content fork full of this "notable" (i.e. he has an article, so he's notable, right?) man's works seems perfectly acceptable to me. In my life, Rudyard Kipling has had "limited impact" but he's got an article and a list of works, the existence of either I would not dispute. By way of clarity, I've been asked to comment here by Cirt which I do entirely without any bias. It's a little unusual to see this being nominated for deletion right on the back of an Arbcom amendment allowing Cirt to work on it with my assistance. Could be a coincidence but that doesn't seem to be the way Wikipedia works. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I was unaware of the arbcom decision. This is not a subpage. It is a separate list, and should meet the criteria of lists, which is independent notability of the group being listed. Even if it were a subpage, there is nothing of significance in this list that is not already mentioned in the primary article. The works of Dan Savage are properly summerised on the bio page, are adequately listed in the navbox and category.
  When I say "limited impact", I am not meaning the subjective impact on your life or someone elses life, but limited impact as a collection of works by an author. I havent looked at all of the items in Category:Bibliographies by author, however I see mostly names about which I could find bibliographies in scholarly sources. That is the independent test of the impact of an author. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, well WP:SPINOFF says "This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure." Still not sure why the original nomination was so heavily biased, the very existence of this list immediately declared as being "absurd". The list is indeed standalone and does, indeed, meet the criteria. Perhaps, as a show of honesty, you could say exactly what it doesn't meet? It's notable, it's referenced using reliable sources, it wouldn't be a good idea to reinvest it into the parent article for WP:SIZE concerns... where is the genuine criterion for deletion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the page is in good shape on the way to Featured List status, the subject is a notable figure, and this page is very to similar to other Wikipedia Bibliography pages, many of which are not up to the quality this one is. Not sure what you're getting at with "limited impact". – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This is a vindictive, bad-faith nomination. The old rev by Cirt is an attempt to create an FL along the lines of mine--his article needs work in terms of reproducing biographical material, but even if this was purely a list itself, it would be notable. I struggle to understand how someone could have made this nomination other than to be spiteful to Cirt and I can't come up with a reason. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koavf, your article about George Orwell bibliography meets the criteria for such articles, and is a lovely article which should be emulated, however I dont think it should be emulated for every author who has ever published a few books and appeared on TV. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well sourced bibliography of works by a notable author. I am puzzled by the existence of this discussion. LadyofShalott 18:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Notable works of notable author, all cited. "Wikipedia is not a catalogue", is not a "Wikipedia is not" topic, and "limited impact" is not a measure of WP:Notability. Admin should try to do better with their NPOV language for deletion noms, and watch the use of words like "absurd" in a deletion nomination. Dkriegls (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: According to the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists, there should be independent, reliable sources discussing the works of Dan Savage as a group. Perhaps the books under Further reading provide that support, but if so I can't access the relevant parts. If someone were to explicitly provide the sources as footnotes, I'd be happy to vote "keep". I strongly recommend finding those sources: they would provide the knockout argument. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RockMagnetist (talk · contribs), there are a few already cited in the article that give some good info from independent, reliable secondary sources discussing the works of Dan Savage as a group. Here are some of them:

1. Rapp, Linda (2006). "Savage, Dan". In Summers, Claude J. (ed.). glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. Chicago, Illinois: glbtq, Inc. Retrieved May 31, 2011.
2. Murphy, Eileen (May 9, 2001). "Dan Savage Takes Editorial Reins at The Stranger". Industry News. , Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. Retrieved May 31, 2011.
3. Works by or about Dan Savage in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Hope that's helpful to you! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think the first two references are enough to establish notability. I'm not sure about the third - can anyone be searched that way? I recommend you cite these references after the first sentence of the bibliography. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done, I've added those cites after the first sentence of the bibliography, per this helpful suggestion by RockMagnetist (talk · contribs), above. See diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bibliographies of notable writers ate generally legitimate spinouts, requiring no demonstration of independent notability (and trying to parse notability between writers and their writings is generally pointless). That said, this article is bloated with far more biographical content and commentary than is standard prace for bibliographic lists, and the table formatting renders much of the content almost unreadable -- it's ridiculous for for paragraph-length content in cells to be displayed on lines of three or four words. A substantial revamp is called for, but not deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful supplement to the biography of a notable writer. Jamming this material into the bio would bog it down. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep - Savage is not a Faulkner or Hemingway, and sometimes his smart mouth outruns his brains, but I think it would be lovely if industrious editors did produce detailed, exhaustive bibliographies like this one on other writers. What a great research tool for both scholars and for general readers: a well-done contribution to organized, easily accessible knowledge that Wikipedia is uniquely able to make. Love him or hate him, why would anyone want to restrict access to knowledge? It's not like we have to pay for more paper and ink, you know. This page should set the standard for other bibliography pages to emulate, and kudos to whoever is creating it. Enuff said. Textorus (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Bibliographies for authors who have published many works are perfectly valid spin-off articles; they are roughly equivalent to the discographies and filmographies that so regularly appear at FLC. As a featured list director who is vigilant in monitoring whether lists meet the criterion regarding stand-alone lists, I think there are enough works published by this author to justify a list, although I grant it's not as clear-cut as for Orwell. Maybe the biographical content should be cut down, but that's a content issue and not a reason for outright deletion. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second what you say both about discographies/filmographies as well as cutting down the biography section, both of which flashed through my mind but I failed to include in my comment above. Textorus (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "absurd" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOT has never precluded bibliographies/discographies/lists of work in biographies. So we're left with a claim that this isn't a spinout. *puzzled look* I don't see a basis given for that claim, but if the argument is one of article history, I don't agree. Even if the spinout criteria were meant to be read that pedantically (and they're not), merging the articles would produce an article which the guideline WP:Article Size would ask us to immediately split, and the biblio would be the natural fracture point. Which would leave us back where we started. Any putative argument that we should merge this just to split it again would be either pointless or pointed. As an aside: I see a number of articles about authors, scholars, artists and musicians whose bibliographies, discographies and lists of work could be more harmoniously presented to our reader in segregated splits. In many cases, particularly with respect to less notable creators, the lists tend to unduly dominate the prose, but deleting said lists subtracts value from the reader. We should split lists of work more often, in my view. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Pointless or pointed" Excellent, Joe! I like it! •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I concur with the nominator, above, that every author does not need a list of his/her works as a separate article. Given the SIZE concerns at the main article and the quality referencing of this one, however, I believe it's appropriate in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good work on the list and Dan Savage is one of the most popular writers in the United States, so I'm surprised to see this list come up for deletion. I think this can probably be closed now..per snow keep? Sarah (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me, certainly - and there are no Delete !votes after 3 days. But I've commented already. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or withdraw this proposal. Clearly, this article has references to be verified. AFD is not a substitute for cleanup and talk page (I have linked to an essay, but you get the idea). Alternatively, you can discuss this in one of involved WikiProjects next time, or try WP:peer review. WP:article size applies to well-written bibliographies and pages about persons. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (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.