Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin


 * 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 and merge back into Aaron Sorkin. NawlinWiki 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary fork from Aaron Sorkin - the important ones are already listed there. The "honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin" are not so notable or significant in themselves that they also deserve their own article. Masaruemoto 00:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. All those episodes ARE notable. The entire list is of notable episodes of TV shows, where in fact most of the episodes even have their own articles.-BillDeanCarter 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read his statment again, he said the awards are not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make this a featured article list! It's basically a stub at this point, and will be improved, especially as the years go by.-BillDeanCarter 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Aside from the article title being wrong (Sorkin is American, so it should be "honors"), the awards he has won can be mentioned in his article (nominations are rarely worth mentioning). TJ Spyke 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is an extension of the FA on Aaron Sorkin. The material was previously in the main article on Aaron Sorkin, but the list grew too large, and these facts were in turn used to write up a paragraph or two summarizing the awards and honors he received. How many bytes does this take up? Not much.-BillDeanCarter 02:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally unnecessary. Should belong in Aaron Sorkin. Half are just nominations anyway. Black Harry 04:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was in the Aaron Sorkin article, and then at FAC they decided that it deserved it's own article, so I complied. And this article is not just nominations anyway because you can actually see which episodes got the nominations and awards. It's interesting to see which episodes were considered the best, and come on, every single West Wing episode has an article, so let's not worry about a single list. I wish the deletionists would create more often.-BillDeanCarter 04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the FAC for Sorkin (Featured article candidates/Aaron Sorkin), and nowhere in it is there any mention of branching off the awards section. In fact, this article was created 6 hours BEFORE Sorkin's article was nominated for FAC, so how did they decide at the FAC that this needed to be created? Please be aware in the future that people will check on your statements, so lying is not a good idea. TJ Spyke 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Lying?  Leave the vitriol to me, I'm the one whose work is being deleted here. So 6 hours before, huh?  You think that's coincidence? Maybe there was a discussion going on in and around the FAC nomination, but it happened during that time when the article was heading towards FA.  Regardless, there was a discussion where it was decided to fork, and rightly so.-BillDeanCarter 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, you said they decided to do this at the FAC. So you lied there. Second, I see no mention of splintering the article on Sorkin's talk page either. So this splintering was never mention on the subjects talk page or his FAC page. TJ Spyke 07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WHAT? Please look up lie in Merriam-Webster. Wait, I'll do it for you.  lie:It's to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. I am not so ridiculous that I would lie about something so utterly ridiculous.-BillDeanCarter 08:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Proof See here [] where Shudda suggested de-listing during the peer review, which I still think was a good idea.-BillDeanCarter 08:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You attempted to deceive people by thinking that others supported making this article. You just presented more proof that no one even suggested making an article for his awards (Shudda suggests one paragraph for it). TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my great attempt to deceive you about the creation of this list. I'm glad you have pointed it out.  I finally admit to it.  It was a moment of weakness.  I'm in the habit of hatching lies that are based on truths, so that I can start a false war over an article's right to exist at Wikipedia.  It's something I do, and you are in no way ridiculous.  I am.-BillDeanCarter 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go delete all the Anime character articles if you have nothing better to do, but don't waste time deleting a list of someone's awards, who is way more talented than any of you will ever be, because it doesn't meet your standards.-BillDeanCarter 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Attacking other people will not help convince anyone. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally i'd be for deleting all the anime character's pages. I someone were to nominate them i'd agree and do everything to have them deleted. If its so important to you why don't you do it? Black Harry 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, but that is besides the point. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - why don't you just trim this down and put it back? The current blurb in the article seems sufficient - you could flesh it out by explaining the number of nominations also. A whole article seems un-necessary. Also, the attitude is really not helping. --Haemo 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those nominations are just as interesting as the awards. For someone interested in Aaron Sorkin's works a nomination or an award are equally notable, because what you pull from that is that those episodes are the most worthwhile to watch from a critical point of view. If you ever stroll through a screenwriter's most critically acclaimed episodes you learn a lot. This is what this list provides, and it's not available anywhere else.-BillDeanCarter 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Let's not have unnecessary forked lists. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary. Some editorial restraint needs to be exercised with only major awards being merged back into the main article. Cleo123 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This list took time to pull together, and is the reason that the blurb in the article exists. If someone is interested in the works of Aaron Sorkin then they want to know which of his works received acclaim. It is outrageous that there are other lists out there (I will not waste time drudging them up, you know where they are to be found) that are of little import and yet exist here at Wikipedia. Let's not forget the context here, Aaron Sorkin is one of the most celebrated of screenwriters, and knowing which of his works are the most critically acclaimed is vital to any study of him. This list harms no one, and I could, and just might now, make this article an FA list. It is relevant, and I understand no one here even really knows who Aaron Sorkin is, but he is a modern day Charles Dickens in many ways, and we could all justify a list of awards for Dickens' serial narratives, couldn't we? We'd all love to know which chapters of Dickens were most favored. So let's end this ridiculous deletion, and Keep this article. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone is interested in every single nomination (which is not notable. Award wins are, nominations aren't), there are plenty of fan sites for those. TJ Spyke 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell is a fan site? Bury them.  This is an encyclopedic article and for anyone showing up to read about Aaron Sorkin with an interest in TV writing, will be most interested in the Further reading section, picking up a few of his scriptbooks, and the awards section where they will compare the acclaimed episodes to those in the scriptbooks, to even their favorite episodes. There is real value in that list to the student of Sorkin's works.-BillDeanCarter 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What happened to comprehensiveness? Remember, Aaron Sorkin is his works.  That's what he's well known for.  So notable is any episode that won an award or was nominated.  Those are the notable ones.-BillDeanCarter 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think everyone appreciates the time and effort that you have put into compiling this information for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, inclusion of a free standing article of this nature opens a potential pandora's box for Wikipedia as a whole. I am not adverse to the information being merged back into the main article, but perhaps it can be reformatted and consolidated a bit? Your passion for the subject matter is appreciated. I'm sure that you only want the article to be the best that if can be - but let's keep it one article. Cheers! Cleo123 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this banner? user increm
 * I've put up all my arguments, no one seems to be considering them, and the not notable argument is bunk. Let's be rational, and not gang up on an article that was good enough for EVERYONE reviewing the Aaron Sorkin article during FAC. Only good idea come out of this debate is that the article be moved to List of the honors and awards of Aaron Sorkin.-BillDeanCarter 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorkin's article was good enough for FAC, not this one. TJ Spyke 07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Have you seen some of the lists that make it through Featured list candidates. GO look at them right now and we can end this right now.-BillDeanCarter 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.75 million articles, and the relevancy of this one is being argued over and over again by me. I think it's safe to say this article is staying.-BillDeanCarter 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is one most users accept (including many admins). So far, you are the only one who thinks it should stay, and you haven't provided a good reason. Heck, you even lied to make it seem like others supported creating the article in the first place. Also, I am not wrong because this article is NOT a Featured Article, Sorkin's FA status doesn't mean anything. TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All that to say, there is no pandora's box to be afraid of opening if you follow the philosophy that "with the incremental growth in the number of Wikipedia articles over time, items which were once deemed to be insufficiently notable to have articles may eventually prove notable enough for entry."-BillDeanCarter 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Challenge How about going through [Category:Television lists] and bringing this hammer down on all of them. Instead of all against me, how about all against everyone doing what I'm doing for notable articles.-BillDeanCarter 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, try to calm down. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down? Are you kidding me?  Not everyone can understand the value of every article at Wikipedia, so I'm trying to be as furious as I can in conveying the necessity that this article Keep. It's not even done yet!-BillDeanCarter 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Being furious to defend your article will definitely not help. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have another article called List of the writings of William Monahan, an incredibly difficult article to pull together, not yet done, requiring me to travel to complete it, and I would go absolutely ballistic if it was deleted. So for me, this fight is much more than one article. I know people think Trivia all the time, one of the biggest fallacies in knowledge ever, because as long as you put things in the right context almost everything will have a meaning.-BillDeanCarter 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You best not look at this, then. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that some of the articles you have created may have taken a while to compile (I'm pretty sure that this article took a while) but also remember that you don't own articles you have made yourself. Sr13 (T|C) ER 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I write at Wikipedia is to share.-BillDeanCarter 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What the eff? Holy crap, I just had an aneurysm. User:Sr13 has his own page at Wikipedia for his awards: User:Sr13/Awards.-BillDeanCarter 09:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a user subpage, it's not part of the mainspace. WP guidelines specifically allow users to create subpages for things like personal awards, see Subpages. TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Should every celebrity who has won or been nominated for awards now be entitled to a free standing article dedicated to those awards - or just Mr. Sorkin? That is the Pandora's Box being opened here. BillDeanCarter, you do need to calm down. This is not personal. Cleo123 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can justify it, then why not. Think of all the articles that are related to Sorkin's works here at Wikipedia with no question of their notability. Every West Wing episode has an article, regardless of it's notability. Well, this list you all want to delete basically justifies the existence of a select bunch of those articles. Mr. Sorkin isn't just any celebrity, he is one of the few celebrities amongst Screenwriters, so it's deserved. David E. Kelley's awards and nominations would equally merit an article, if there are in fact enough, which I imagine there are.-BillDeanCarter 08:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I say- just mention the notable awards the person has won (say, the Emmy) and mention that in the article. Don't list the years or the miscellenious awards this person has won. Do this (if this has not been done already), then delete. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, you have about a twentieth the number of awards that Aaron Sorkin has and yet you have your own user page for your awards? Where is your Delete coming from? What part of Neverland have you people taken me to tonight?-BillDeanCarter 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A user subpage and a mainspace page are not the same. Read Subpages. TJ Spyke 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. This user is far less important than he/she thinks he/she is.  Jimbo Wales deserves his own awards page as does Aaron Sorkin.  End of story.-BillDeanCarter 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, don't attack me. Thanks. Sr13 (T|C) ER 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge some counts and actual awards back into Aaron Sorkin. Sadly, effort is not a criteria for inclusion.  I feel for you, BDC, I've had pages I spent a great deal of time on merged, deleted and diluted.  But there's no such this as article ownership.  I hope I'm not setting myself up for personal attacks here, and I'd like to ask everyone on both sides to keep it cool and assume good faith.  Everyone here is just trying to make Wikipedia better. -- Plutor talk 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any pertinent information back to Aaron Sorkin. "Awards of" pages are generally superfluous, as they tend to simply be a dumping grounds for every minor and sundry award or accolade someone can dredge up.  A short list of major, notable awards as a section on the parent article is more than adequate.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge: per above as unwarranted fork, placing undue weight on this subject. God in heaven.  The main article for Sorkin is already larger than the articles for all of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize Literature winners combined.  That Mr. Carter considers him the greatest human being alive is possible, but if his defense of this fork rests on scouting out the talk pages of every editor daring to oppose his POV in search of dirt and insults to fling, then I strongly urge Mr. Carter to take a Wikibreak, during which he would be well advised to correct some of his profound misimpressions of what Wikipedia is and is not.    RGTraynor  18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are so off-base. TJ Spyke attacked me when he called me a liar; I mistook the creation of this list occurring in FAC when in fact it occurred in peer review.  Mr. Sorkin is  not the greatest human being alive but one of the greatest screenwriters alive and so we should know some of the reasons why.  The particular utility of the awards/nominations list? -- is that you can go watch all those nominated/awarded episodes afterwards.  It's kind of a guide to the other Wikipedia articles on those TV episodes, whose notability themselves has never been challenged.  How about leave this list alone?-BillDeanCarter 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You stated, on this AFD, that the FAC suggested that you create this article. This does not appear to be true - it was never mentioned in the discussion for FAC, nor was it mentioned on the talk page for the article.  I have not seen any evidence presented that creating this list was discussed at all.  What was mentioned was what many have suggested here - that you trim it down to a single paragraph.  While you may not have intended to deceive anyone, you do appear to have mislead people - and one would be inclined to believe intentionally, given that the false statement was arguing for your position.  Your passion is appreciated, but you seem to insist on attacking other users, rather than explaining why what you did was a mistake, or was not misleading, and (apparently) combing people's user-pages in order to drag in unrelated material, in what I can only surmise is an attempt to reduce their credibility.  You need to seriously cool off, and accept the advice that other, experience, editors are telling you.  You don't own this article, and you don't own this list.  --Haemo 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I already linked in the entire discussion and here's the diff []. So stop calling me a liar, and let's talk about the more substantial arguments.-BillDeanCarter 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never called you a liar - and it's really insulting that you feel the need to slander me as such - I merely explained that I believed there had been a misunderstanding, or a mistake, and asked for clarification and some sembelence of good faith. However, you feel we need to discussion the more substantial arguments - so let's.  The rationale for creating this list was the suggestion of one user on the FAC page - here, several different editors are telling you that they believe that this was a mistake, and that this topic would be better served by being trimmed and integrated into a single page.  You have largely rebuffed this by arguing that other inferior stuff exists and so your article should stay, or that your article's subject is sufficiently famous that such a list is important.  Only the latter of these is even worth seriously discussing - however, one will notice that most of the listings here are nominations for awards; not actually winning them.  There is ample space availible on the main page for a summary of the awards he's won, and the number of times he's been nominated - if you feel those are important.  Any more detailed information can be merged into the specific episodes that were nominated - and then linked from the article, contextually.  This will not only provide the material you desire to be included in the encyclopedia, but strike a nice balance between depth and length. --Haemo 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A reference work like Wikipedia should have a complete biography including nominations, and splitting from the main article is a good compromise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the article. If the awards and honors are worthy of inclusion there, great; if not, they're trivia and ought to go. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why merge, when someone will simply suggest later on that it merits its own article. And round and round we go.-BillDeanCarter 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fear of a repeat performance is no reason to abdicate the issue and settle on an inferior solution. If community consensus is that the article is not encyclopedic, and is deleted, and someone recreates it then more than likely it'll fail a future deletion debate.  And if it gets too "round and round" the entry can be protected to prevent future re-creation.   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no redirect. If anyone wants to add the highlights to Aaron Sorkin, go crazy, but it's not worth a separate list nor should there really be any GFDL issue regarding credit that requires a redirect. --Calton | Talk 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - i think one needs to be dispassionate about an afd, and use guidelines, rather than anecdotes when trying to reach a consensus. i find a list of noms/wins to be statistical data. if wiki is not a list of stats, then it should be deleted. the_undertow talk  22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you left out a noun or a verb. I think you left out a lot more too, and it's this disregard for facts that is behind all the great travesties.  Why is Aaron Sorkin celebrated as one of the greatest screenwriters, well see the List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin for the proof.  Dispassion?  Absolute nonsense.  I suggest everyone have a little more passion.-BillDeanCarter 23:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i think my sentence stands as grammatically correct. dispassionate - yes, that is the nature of the beast. this article either meets guidelines for inclusion or it does not, regardless of anyone's feelings towards the subject. the_undertow talk  00:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which nouns or verbs are missing? "Badgering", perhaps? And as for "one of the greatest screenwriters", 1) that's your opinion, not something Wikipedia trafficks in; and 2) I'm not seeing the words "Academy Awards" anywhere there, unlike for Robert Towne, Paddy Chayefsky, Woody Allen, David Mamet, Billy Wilder, or Lawrence Kasdan, just to name a few off the top of my head. Not that they should be getting separate lists, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous! How about Emmy and WGA?  This is _EXACTLY_ why this list of his honors and awards has to exist, so that people who are ignorant about TV writers can learn a thing or two.  You don't win an Academy Award for a TV series.-BillDeanCarter 00:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Emmy and WGA? Free clue: those other screenwriters have won those, too, and more. Someone unaware of the larger world of screenwriting really has no business gassing on about "ignorance". --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calton, your attempts to antagonize the creator of this article are not useful. This is a valuable contributor and there is no reason to throw salt in the wounds. You've made your point. I would suggest you move on. Cleo123 05:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleo123, your bad-faith attempts at mind-reading are not useful. I'm addressing his claims, and there is no reason to stick your nose into things you neither are following or have shown any interest in. I would suggest you move on to other bits of busy-bodying. --Calton | Talk 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh goody!, more lists of awards. Look what I found: List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip awards. Who wants to be the first to put that up for deletion?-BillDeanCarter 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got an idea for some fun!, let's delete 100,000 articles in a week. A little bit of a challenge, I know, but we could seriously decimate a good part of this encyclopedia if we were successful.  This reminds me of the film industry in a way, where you start of with one writer and his screenplay, and you fire him, hire another writer to rewrite parts, chopping a scene here, and then there, and before you know it the entire story doesn't fit together anymore and you're left with a real neat clean generic thing that's got consensus.-BillDeanCarter 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got an idea for some fun!, let's delete 100,000 articles in a week By my rough count, 30,000 to 40,000 pages/images already get deleted every single week, so it's certainly an achievable goal. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Being sarcastic definitely doesn't help, and your argument isn't so good as well. If you don't like the idea of consensus (which is, by the way, official policy), you don't have to edit here. If you want those articles to be deleted, you can do that yourself and nominate that page for deletion. Don't be disruptive as well.
 * Also, deleting 100,000 lists a week seems like a lot to me. I don't think there are that many on this encyclopedia. Sr13 (T|C) ER 02:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mon petit, I did not mean 100,000 a week, but 100,000 for one week as a one time deal. But that would be detail (or nuance for those silly literates), which we certainly cannot tolerate if we are to appease the crowd.-BillDeanCarter 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really think this pit bull demeanor is helping your argument in the least degree? Wrap your head around this: by and large, we disagree with you. Repeated jeering and polemics only suggests that you're employing them in lieu of any legitimate grounds or rebuttal.  RGTraynor  02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you guys have swayed me. I want to put the pressure cooker on the whole mass of articles at English Wikipedia.  Let's raze every list that can't justify itself.  I know, I tried to argue that this list was notable with arguments, but you all set me straight by repeating that it wasn't notable.  I forgot that arguments don't matter, it is mob mentality (we do live in a democracy after all) that has the final say.  So let's start a WikiProject even, and raze all that cruft, and for those who like to eat cruft for dessert, I'll even move some of those articles to your user pages.-BillDeanCarter
 * Disrupting Wikipedia in order to prove your point or exact some sort of revenge against the community would not be advisable. See WP:POINT. No one has "ganged up" on you or Sorkin. I believe the editors participating in this discussion have reasonably expressed nuetral, unbiased opinions. Your passion for the subject matter seems to have impacted your ability to maintain objectivity. For goodness sake, take a little break and calm down. You are a gifted editor and you are now harming your reputation within the community. Is a stand alone list really worth compromising your working relationships with others? Cleo123 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm about to resign. My list List of the writings of William Monahan just got AfD'ed.  That's about all I can take.  Lot of work went into that.  I'm not fighting for it.  Others will, and if it goes I will be gone for good.-BillDeanCarter 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, calm down. If you'll notice, that editor has nothing to do with this WP:AFD, and you have no reason to believe they're in any way related.  Characterizing this as an "attack" and getting histrionic about it are really unnecessary, and insulting to the other users here.  --Haemo 04:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments like this really push the bounds of WP:CIVIL. I don't really see how we're supposed to even have a discussion with you, when you're intent on acting like this.  -Haemo 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's apparent that we can't, and it isn't as if any such discussion would be fruitful. I suggest that the closing admin has enough upon which to rule without belaboring things further.    RGTraynor  03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank god. For a second there I thought there would be a tidal wave of sympathy for my situation.  Here I believed that finally people would see a light (mine), and decide that a really nice list could be put together, with some comments about the controversy around some of the awards, and helpful links into the West Wing episodes that were nominated, and other interesting minutiae that makes reading such a joy.-BillDeanCarter 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And when you're hired to write Mr. Sorkin's biography, no doubt all that minutiae will find a proper home there. This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for hagiography.    RGTraynor  03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I believe I was done with writing about Aaron Sorkin's biography a few months ago, until some recent fetishist decided to go on a rampage (there have been other victims of Masaruemoto AfDs) and chop my article up.  I was DONE.  But now you want a biography.  I'd much rather write a column about Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter 03:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you now threatening Wikipedia with some form of negative publicity as retaliation? Please, clarify. Cleo123 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I would much rather delve into the problems I see, than go back and write a biography about Aaron Sorkin. I am an incrementalist I am learning, and I believe some of the best stuff can be found when you move an article over into something depthier.  For instance, my List of the writings of William Monahan (great I'm already starting my defense for that one), which looks at Monahan's articles, has been an incredibly interesting endeavor for me, and I know others would like to read it.  His articles are scattered, hidden, no one reports on them, but I have found them piece by piece.  Anyways, if Wikipedia isn't the place for that kind of intrigue then it's going to get dull very soon.-BillDeanCarter 04:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all of your meticulous research and have little doubt that you are truly motivated by a sincere desire to make Wikipedia a truly comprehensive resource. Your efforts are to be applauded. Please, do not misconstrue debates over the formation of freestanding articles to necessarily be attacks upon the intrinsic value of the information contained therein. What is on the butcher block here is the article. Much of the information can be merged back into the main article. These are two different situations, and I don't want to muddy the water by discussing Monahan here. Forking off from the main article is frowned upon, to some degree, because precedents can be set that create problems elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Whenever possible, it is best to incorporate the data into the main article, which also minimizes navigational issues for readers. It's that simple. No one is attacking you or trying to diminish the value of your contributions. If you think of this as a "formatting" issue - I think you'll fare better emotionally. Keep your chin, up! This too shall pass... Peace, Cleo123 05:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you insist on attacking other users, rather than working with them. Please, calm down - it would be a shame if you left the encyclopedia over something like this.  --Haemo 04:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Given the impassioned nature of the above defense, I was rather expecting this list to be longer than it.  I see no reason why it cannot be pared down into prose form, listing the salient awards and perhaps a simple count of associated nominations ("...and was nominated for four others", or the like) and re-inserted into the appropriate section of the parent article.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Per Serpent's Choice, above--additionally, if others can be persuaded to vote Merge and bring this matter to a swift resolution, I'll pare down the Aaron Sorkin article myself so it can better accommodate the information. It's a very well-done list, as lists go--I believe I can work it into the article pretty seamlessly. I'm not proposing drastic revisions to the main article, by the by, just some light copyediting to tighten things up. Best regards, Wysdom 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, mine says "delete", but if you read what I've been saying, I really mean "trim and merge". --Haemo 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: the subject may be notable, but a list of his awards is not notable enough for a separate article. There is a long paragraph on his awards in the main article.  We do not need this duplicated by a spearate list.  Peterkingiron 22:19, 29 April 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.