Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works by Neil Gaiman


 * 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. 

Result was Keep. &mdash; Caknuck 01:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of works by Neil Gaiman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a review of what Gaiman has written. This page should be deleted and any important information should be included in the Neil Gaiman article. WhiteKongMan and I are head to head on the relevancy of these works. See Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan for other such lists that are being AfD'ed.) BillDeanCarter 11:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC) "
 * Strong Keep And I usually tend towards deletionism. This is useful information, and no clear policy has been cited. Lurker undefined 11:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 11:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: per clause 2 at WP:CSK. This is a bad faith nomination (a charge I do not make lightly) as a violation of WP:POINT. User:BillDeanCarter has been passionately defending several "List of works by ..." AfDs, and to quote his own words concerning this very article, "I just found List of works by Neil Gaiman and what a god damn joy! It's outrageous that this buffoonery wants to eliminate that kind of intrigue," and in alerting the editors on one AfD of this nomination said "I'm sadistic."  It is possible to defend one's pet articles without deliberately disrupting the process.    RGTraynor  14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 100% Keep This was nominated in bad faith. No idea why Nominator believes I would have supported this.  Gaiman has written actual books, whereas Monahan (whose list I nominated for AfD) had written mostly newspaper articles. WhiteKongMan 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per norm. Rehevkor 15:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Valid topic fork from the biography page a notable fantasy author. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- useful list and valid subject to be included Thunderwing 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the author's article. If that would result in the article's being too large, then Keep. Comparison to the Monahan list is not valid, as that is a collection of magazine bylines whereas this is a listing of comics, books, etc. of which Gaiman is a major (or the major) creative force. Otto4711 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the main article is already too long. Ridiculous nom, this might not be the place for a list of works but we have a list for every other major author, and Gaiman's about as major as living authors get —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Gaiman is an important writer with an extensive bibliography.
 * Keep Valid sub-topic from a notable fantasy author. Tom pw (talk) (review) 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very notable writer, and the list is far too big to just shove into the main article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all lists of works are not identical; in comparison to the list for Monahan, this is a much longer list, and more detailed with respect to reprints, and other formats. This is the sort of list which justifies a separate article. DGG 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it really would be better if some secondary sources were added, and a brief description of each novel. *** Crotalus ***  00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable writer.  The Hippie  01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This entry was split off from the main Neil Gaiman entry in accordance with the guidelines on such things. It would be helpful if someone nominating an entry for deletion would look into the history of it a bit before jumping in. (Emperor 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep per everyone. JuJube 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. Cleo123 04:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No-brainer keep. Correct treatment of overspill from Main article Ohconfucius 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it fascinating that all the sugegstions made of bad-faith nominating neatly side-step the trenchant point raised by this nom, namely that either you block simple bibliographic lists, or you allow every book, article or back-of-a-napkin scribbling to be listed, in case anyone wants to know about them. No vote, just a growing sadness that Wiki is becoming the first refuge of the trivial and non-consequential -- Simon Cursitor 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The nominator's point might be more trenchant if he actually believed in it, and I'm confused at the implication that you overlooked the direct quotes given above from the Monahan AfD proving he doesn't. In any event, while I've !voted on the merits of AfD nominations that have been ill-considered or overhasty, I won't when there is clear and convincing proof of bad faith.  This is one.    RGTraynor  14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Artw 05:20, 5 May 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.