Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garth Ennis work for 2000 A.D./Judge Dredd


 * 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 merge to Garth Ennis. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Garth Ennis work for 2000 A.D./Judge Dredd
This information should be part of the main Garth Ennis entry. --Artw 22:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect As I proposed the merge that should be fairly obvious but I think there is plenty of good information on the page but it can easily be wrangled into shape and inserted into the main Garth Ennis entry (I'll happily do that if the decision goes that way) (Emperor 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Redirect seems to be unnecessary as nothing else points here. --Artw 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. This doesn't really need to be at AfD - there is information that could be added to the main article, and "Garth Ennis" should obviously be that article. Vizjim 08:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the only worry I have is that putting it into the main Ennis article would make that article a little long and list-orientated. On Ennis' own page, I think the comics bibliography should be selected and concise, rather than comprehensive. On the other hand, there's a lot of good information in this entry, and it can't be argued that it isn't encyclopaedic - and it would therefore be a shame to lose it. I wouldn't strongly oppose the merge, but I think if some actual writing was done to bulk out the entry, describing Ennis' 2000AD work and its significance and context (he is, after all, one of the most important writers ever to have worked on the comic, although it then beggars the question if similar articles should be created for Wagner, Grant et al), then the article can stand on its own. Either way, I've no firm vote - just that comment. Seb Patrick 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a good point. I wouldn't be against the idea of having "Selected bibliography" in the entry that would link through to separate "Complete Garth Ennis bibliography" - its a similar concern I have with the Alan Moore entry. My problem with this is that it seems pretty arbitary and if you had a selected bibliography some of his 2000AD material would have to be in it. If there is an agreed upon format for a concise/complete bibliography we can sort that out when/if the merge is made (I'll start a section on it on the Talk page so we can decide what would go in to a concise list). (Emperor 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Is an exhaustive list of every 5 page story that Ennis wrote for the weekly 2000AD during his stint on dread really that necessary? Followed by an exhaustive list of reprints? Especialy since the information is easily found in other places. TBH I have the same problem with a lot of the other 2000AD Bios thsat have cropped up lately. --Artw 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As one of the people adding those details to those bios I'd say yes. The information is available elsewhere but it is the bringing together of various strands of data in one place that allows us to get a grasp of their overall body of work. Otherwise you'd have to list their major work (which is subjective) and tag on "and some other stuff" leaving people to wander off to try find out what that is. Equally this also relies on the other places staying up as long Wikipedia or you'd end up scrambling to dig out the extra information (Dez Skinn is always predicting 2000 AD's demise - one day he may even be proven right). As I've said I'd be interested in having a "concise bibliography" within someone's entry and separate "comprehensive bibliography" for the details. All their publications are clearly notable and so trying to reach a consensus on what would or wouldn't be included would be a nightmare and almost impossible to police. Alan Moore in particular has a lot of abortive runs of comics and single issues here and there which are notable and worthy of inclusion but possibly not within a more concise bibliography. (Emperor 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Although I personally haven't been adding them, I don't understand why they could be a problem with comprehensive bibliographies. All Wikipedia creator biographies - literary or otherwise - follow the same pattern, with biographical details at the top, career details second, other issues third, and finally a list of achievements, accomplishments, and/or published works.   Wikipedia is not paper, and these pages so far are not breaking even the recommended page sizes.  It's more useful for this information to be gathered in one place than scattered here and there over the interweb. Vizjim 08:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Further note - merging the two pages together results in a page substantially below the recommended 30kb limit. However, the guidelines on size state that even this limit should not be taken too seriously for lists. Vizjim 13:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All good points. Rather than lead this VfD astray I started a discussion on this over on the Garth Ennis talk page (Emperor 14:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Merge with main Garth Ennis article. Part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that you can offer complete information. If the bibiliography ever does grow beyond the suggested limit, I suggest making a fork for the whole thing. GentlemanGhost 22:55, 6 June 2006 (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.