Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction


 * 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. Eluchil404 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Writing introductions for books isn't that notable. This is very trivial and non-notable. Being a popular article doesn't justify the introductions are notable. RobJ1981 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator. This is such a trivial list that it doesn't even deserve a category. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. JJL 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep exactly the type of information Wikipedia should have as well as more 'serious' articles. --Martin Wisse 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:USEFUL Jbeach56 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or make into a category page, per WP:DIR  Zchris87v  14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator. I don't see how this could ever be helpful in any way. Quite trivial.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, will only encourage List of Restaurants at which Stephen King Has Eaten and List of Songs to which Stephen King has Sang Along To Whilst Driving. Too trivial, and not a good idea for a category unless you support similar categories for every notable author who has written introductions. Thomjakobsen 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Stephen King bibliography. 96T 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list deals with stuff a writer has written. Trivia is not a reason to delete (it's also POV in this case). Rocket000 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in some capacity, as this concerns one of the most prominent writers of our time (if not recent history in general), but it also could be perhaps merged, i.e. with something like: "Stephen King has written introduction in a number of his books, including x, v, and z." Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, far too trivial to even be worth keeping track of on Wikipedia. Pretty loosely associated, too; nothing substantial links these books aside from this. Maybe consider merging to Stephen King bibliography, but I'd prefer to see it gone altogether personally. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. People must remember that this is a "list". Vice regent 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So?, there are criteria for deleting lists as well. Jbeach56 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails multiple listings in WP:LISTCRUFT, very trivial, category will work as well. Jbeach56 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, at best deserves a section in Stephen King bibliography (which has a number of unnecessary plot summaries). --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. King is eminently notable, the books he writes are likewise, the fact that he has written introductions for other peoples' books isn't by itself. Per Dhartung, a section in his bibliography article might be in order. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment People, I think you might be going about this the wrong way. Try not to think of this as just some random popular author's list of introductions . Stephen King is, if there ever was one, an exception. If your not familiar, it would take to long to explain. You may consider it listcruft, and I think it might be if it was some other author, but isn't. I mean there's books on this. It's not trivial. It's all verifiable. It's list of notable books introduced by a definitely notable author. I don't see the issue here. Oh, and here's the last AfD Rocket000 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Rocket000 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All quite true, but that doesn't necessarily make the intersection of these two variables notable. That's what's being discussed here, rather than the notability of the man or the works involved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Crossover is far too trivial/nonnotable. – sgeureka t•c 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not significant enough for an article.. There is a purpose in such lists, in comprehensive bibliographies of the author, but they are not really appropriate on wikipedia. DGG (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I swore all of these stupid trivial lists were deleted months ago! And they just keep getting more and more obscure! I propose a new Wikia project to direct all these listmakers to Doc Strange 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE JUST WHEN I THOUGHT I'VE SEEN IT ALL. FFS.   Bur nt sau ce  22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any salvageable and noteable content into Stephen King, as the information can be better suited there, where people are more likely to search for information regarding the works of Stephen King.--WaltCip 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Stephen King bibliography. It'll fit in at the bottom quite nicely. Artw 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not like these books are notable because Stephen King wrote an introduction to them. It can probably be mentioned in his bibliography at most. Spellcast 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete These books are pretty loosely associated. The topic (Stephen King writing introductions to books) isn't notable, so why do we need a list of these books?   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Loosely associated trivia.  If this is something that Wikipedia excels in, then we can and should correct that problem.  RFerreira 18:15, 6 October 2007 (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.