List of the writings of William Monahan

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 Speedy close. This isn't a delete request, its a merge discussion, the nominator states as much in the nomination, stating he sees "no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main William Monahan article". The recent deletion debate was closed with a note that if you want to merge you go ahead and merge, and I'm looking at the edit history of the article and I can see no attempt to merge. There's no merge discussion on the talk page either. AFD isn't dispute resolution, and if you want to sort this out I suggest you get a mediator in. I can't see any value in rerunning this debate so soon after the last debate, Wikipedia is not a game, you don't keep playing until you get the end you want. Take time out, see if you can agree on a merge discussion after listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, try the steps at dispute resolution and thenm if that all fails come back in a couple of months after it's all been tried seriously and with good faith. Hiding Talk 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the writings of William Monahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page was previously nominated, and the result was no consensus. There is no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main William Monahan article. This list is basically a resume for its author. It fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and many, if not all, of the writings fail WP:NOTE, as not a single writing listed in the article in question has its own Wikipedia page. Also should be noted that a similar debate over the Awards of Aaron Sorkin and another one over the a list of Bruno Maddox's writings were both deleted after debates. Also, no page except for the main William Monahan article links to this list (excluding two redirects), and one author has been the only person to edit this page (with the exception of the two nominations)Black Harry 18:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC). I would like to also add that WP:NOT#REPOSITORY applies here because this list simply links to outside websites. Black Harry (T|C) 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Harry, I am much more interested in why you personally would like to delete this list (for the second time)?-BillDeanCarter 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing against you, I just don't think that the "no consensus" In the first debate was the right decision. I would have been ok with a keep in the first debate, but the closing admin didn't have the fortitude to make a definitive decision. And also, check again cuz I wasn't the one who nominated the first one Black Harry 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the case that there are no time limits, but there are ways of handling cases like this where someone disagrees with the closing of a debate, and that's deletion review. Arbitrarily saying "Hey, I don't think this was closed right" and dropping it back here at AfD so soon is, in my opinion, a little unilateral of a decision and is improper. That's all. Arkyan • (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the nomination of any article for deletion unilateral? Black Harry (T|C) 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that a list of the writings of an author is appropriate where either A) the writings are notable and well-known, or B) A majority of the writings have their own Wikipages. Clearly, this sin't the case when it comes to this particular page. This debate, to me at least, has nothing to do with the author's notability (though he is more famous for his screenplays than anything else), and has everything to do with the notability of items on the list. Black Harry 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the key issue is notability of the items on the list, not the directory argument. I see one element of support for this in guidelines, which is the notion that lists of people should be lists of notable people (e.g., a list of English poets ought not include non-notable poets). That guideline has a specific purpose, as it keeps those major lists from become unwieldy. This list is by its nature the work of a single person and not likely to become unwieldy, and I'd apply the same criteria we apply to an article to it. We don't apply notability criteria within an article. Can you point me to any reason why we should eliminate the list based on policy, having heard my objections to the policy reasons you've cited thus far?A Musing 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of nit-picking my argument, and criticizing me for not doing what you ask, why don't you explain why this fork from the William Monahn article is necessary. Black Harry (T|C) 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it for removal; you need to make an argument why it should be removed. Nothing on Wikipedia is necessary - but this is a good faith contribution by a contributor and should not be removed unless there is a good reason to do so. If someone wants to put it in an article, or separately in a list, that is up to the editors.A Musing 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as the article links to no wiki pages, but to outside sources, it fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Black Harry (T|C) 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, cite me a policy where any amount of time is given for a waiting period for a renomination. Second, under what other denominations does this need to be kept? Black Harry (T|C) 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, under that argument, articles such as List of Women Wilt Chamberlain Slept With, List of women beaten by Brett Myers, or List of men who slept with Paris Hilton wold be perfectly fine. Perhaps you, or another man who gets a high off of lists would enjoy writing those articles. Also, WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content specifically states the following: "list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers." I shouldn't have to explain what this means. Black Harry 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wasted your time with this because the Bill Carter has a fetish for lists, and notified you and your ilk who defended this previously so that he keep his pet project alive. I wasted my time b/c I feel this list is unnecessary, and there is no policy concerning any waiting period Black Harry 01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural:
  • This was discussed a mere nine days ago. Another discussion is not going to elicit a manifestly different result unless s/he has new information or arguments (I have seen none as of yet). If Black Harry disagreed with the result of the decision, he should have taken the issue up with deletion review, as Arkyan pointed out.
  • Substantive:
  • This is the definition of "directory" from WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." - In no way does this page qualify as a directory under this definition.
  • This is the first sentence from WP:NOTE: "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." - I would argue that this list is essentially a fork from the William Monahan article, which clearly passes the notability standard. Not everything about Monahan has to be notable and not every Monahan writing has to be notable to be included, but Monahan himself has to be notable to be included in wikipedia. He has been proven to be notable as a writer, therefore a list of his writings is important to a complete article about him. Because that complete list would be unaesthetic on the main article page, the editor has (rightly, in my opinion) decided to separate it from the main article.
  • I am sorry that the list of writings of Bruno Maddox was deleted. That is why I think that it is important to consider what is being done here and why. The editors nominating these pages seem to feel that these authors lack "fame" or "importance." But their personal opinion regarding an artist's importance is not what is relevant in this debate (please see WP:NOTE). What is relevant is what reliable sources say (WP:RS). Literary and art critics study art of all kinds; they no longer elevate "great" authors, for example. For wikipedia to do so by eliminating lists of this sort would be to place it in the dark ages, essentially; it would certainly be POV and would not reflect the current state of scholarship on authorship. Awadewit Talk 23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you argue that this article doesn't violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY? Black Harry (T|C) 16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from WP:NOT#REPOSITORY: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." - I do not see how any of 1-4 applies to this page - which one do you see applying? Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say point number one, especially for the section on the Claude La Badarian stories. Black Harry (T|C) 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that the links actually enhance this article rather than detract from it, since its purpose is to give readers access to the work. But, more importantly, I would say that WP:MOS (list of works) rather negates this entire debate. It lays out exactly how to display a list a bibliography, a discography, a filmography, etc., thereby implying that such lists are acceptable. It also states "Bibliographies are included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have published books, or substantial portions of books" - note, bibliographies are always complete, not incomplete, representative lists. Awadewit Talk 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find the that section in the manual of style, but couldn't. But from what you quoted, it says nothing about a bibliography needing to be forked from its proper article. Black Harry (T|C) 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link above. No, it does not say that the bibliography needs to be forked, but it does provide advice on making it readable and aesthetic and that is precisely what BillDeanCarter is doing. In fact, he is following much of the advice laid out on that page (even if he didn't know about it). To have the entire bibliography on the article's main page would be unsightly, as it would be for Charles Dickens (who wrote numerous novels, short stories, magazine articles and co-authored many other pieces of literature). Although more famous, I consider this list no different than List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. Note that the Ludwig van Beethoven article does not include this entire list (again, it would be unsightly). It rightly forks it. Awadewit Talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would putting the bibliography at the bottom of the main article make it unreadable. It's a very different scenario than List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven because that list is 4 times the size of the one in question. Black Harry (T|C) 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like BillDeanCarter is violating WP:CANVASS again. See examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. As of my noting this, five of the people he informed have all voted to keep this article. Black Harry 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Black Harry, you should respond to the arguments made above? Awadewit Talk 01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Carter could play by the rules, and not notify those who will defend his pet projects. Black Harry 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that wikipedia encourages editors who have worked extensively on a page that has reached FA to keep it up and even to improve it. That is what I see BillDeanCarter doing. Yes, he should notify everyone, but I still have yet to see you, Black Harry, respond to the arguments against your deletion. I think you should focus on engaging in the debate. So far, your arguments have not been relevant nor based on wikipedia policy as I understand it. Awadewit Talk 04:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wiki policy does encourage notification of interested editors, but here is the exact message that Carter left User:Phoenix2 "Phoenix, would you mind chiming in with a Keep again? This list unfortunately 9 days later has been renominated for deletion." This crosses the line from notification to canvassing, and the similiar messages were left to the other users. Black Harry (T|C) 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not responding. I agreed with you that BillDeanCarter "should notify everyone." But let us move on from this petty canvassing debate to the substance of the charge - you claim that the page violates WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. You must defend your position and explain why those charges apply. I believe that I have shown why they do not. I have responded to your other claim above. Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to work on this list.-BillDeanCarter 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind coming back here to support the retention of this list; I think it's a worthy cause. For your sixth "victim" of canvassing, I think you intended to link to me, not here. --Phoenix 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another "canvassed" person chiming in. I think when someone violates wikipedia policy to renominate an article for deletion, informing others who may have an interest in the article is legit. Lurker 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly what policy did I break when renominating this? Black Harry 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You renominated after 9 days, rather than takign it to Deletion Review Lurker 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deletion reviewed it, however the only thing I could have challenged was if the timing of the closing was appropriate, not the decision of the closing admin. I have no problem with the timing, but I felt that the closing admin made a bad call. perhaps he wanted to outright keep it, but since 2/3 of the votes were for delete or merge, he thought he couldn't get away with an outright keep, he would declare no consensus, which led to a "back-door" keep. Black Harry (T|C) 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV states Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. I recommend closing this AfD' and letting anyone who thinks the original decision was dodgy following the steps outlined in WP:DRV- namely contacting the closing admin and asking him to reconsider, and taking it to Deletion Review if you can't sort it out through direct discussion Lurker 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that to me. I understand what you're saying, but do you honestly think a deletion review would work, especially if the original closing admin were the one in charge? Black Harry (T|C) 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it'd work. And I'd assume a different admin would be the one in charge of implementing the consensus. Lurker 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notified the previous debate's closing admin about this renomination and asked for an explanation of the no consensus. Black Harry (T|C) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in the interest of full disclosure, I notified the users who voted to delete in the first debate, to help counter Carter's notification of users who voted to keep, so WP:CANVAS no longer applies to this debate, though Carter's actions may merit a review. I also think he could have been more open about what he did, and mentioned his notifications in this debate instead of waiting until he got caught to defend himself. WhiteKongMan 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think all bibliographies are directories? Would a list of all the works of Shakespeare or Dickens be a directory? A Musing 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Shakespeare's list wold more than likely link to other articles, whereas the Monahan one doesn't. And it was brought up in the firsr debate that Dickens (and also Hemingway) don't have lists for there writings, though they are more notable than Monahan. WhiteKongMan 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on Shakespeare we do several better, with a whole portal, categories, a template of his complete works pasted on multiple articles, and a List of Shakespearean characters. The question is, what makes this list a directory, when that Shakespeare list is not, and when you don't think a list of Shakespeare's works or Dickens works would be. If it is merely that there are articles on wikipedia, does that mean that a list of all the towns in New York would not be a directory? Or a list of all the actors in Hollywood? Aren't those much more like directories, as you read through the guideline on directories, than this?A Musing 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each entry on the list doesn't have to be notable on a bibliography. Editors here claim that they want a bibliography for Charles Dickens. I suggest that they go look for a bibliography of Charles Dickens (wikipedia currently doesn't have one). It will contain plenty of "non-notable" works to their eyes (meaning only that they have never heard of them because Dickens was a journalist and wrote a lot of material that we don't read anymore). This is all so silly - these people are included in wikipedia because they are writers. One of the most basic pieces of information is a list of what they wrote. I can't imagine why we would not want to include that. The same is true of composers. Do we only list Beethoven's "famous" pieces? Which are those? Deciding such a thing would lead to POV. I really cannot believe that this position is being argued. Bibliographies are basic pieces of information for any author. Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only informed users to help counter the effect of Carter's canvassing, it seemed to be the only way to make this debate fair. I also made it clear that informed the users, and didn't try to hide it. WhiteKongMan 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WhiteKongMan. Entirely appropriate and the proper remedy for canvassing. I had urged Mr. Carter to do the same when I received a note on my page.A Musing 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amusing for trying to make this a fair debate by telling carter what he did wrong. I didn't realize you did that Black Harry (T|C) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one that finds this whole thing weird? I'm simply trying to do a bibliography about one of Hollywood's more prominent writers this decade, and I spend more time arguing the validity of literature. My Machiavellian moves (this is sarcasm) were to counter Black Harry's inexplicable desire to consistently eliminate a list of William Monahan's writings. I came to Wikipedia to write articles but I seem to have found myself in the loony section. I think it's time to have a WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY so that these arguments can come into focus.-BillDeanCarter 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against Monahan having a bibliography of his own. But when none of his stories are notable enough to have their own articles, I don't see why a list of them merits its own page. The bibliography belongs on the article. Black Harry (T|C) 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quick response is: aesthetics. The long response: Merge back, more than double the length of the main Monahan article, debate forking bibliography versus paring it down, then return to where we once were (here). (Side Note: The Dickens bibliography will still be nonexistent, while in an alternate time-line you could actually expend energy creating it)-BillDeanCarter 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, your math is confusing my non-creative, destructive brain (I can be sarcastic too you little shit). But any way, the Monahan article is currently 43 KB long, while the list is 12 KB long. How does adding the two together double the size of the Monahan article? Grow up and learn how to do math, you stupid S.O.B. Black Harry (T|C) 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetics is a legitimate argument while notability is not. Sometimes a writer is known for writing in a particular genre but not another genre (to the general public) but that does not make his/her other writings uninteresting. Black Harry, you seem to be assuming that users only want a superficial understanding of each subject and only want to reinforce what they already know - why would they not want to learn something new about William Monahan, for example? Why include only his "famous" works which readers will already come to the page knowing about? Some of us want more than that and wikipedia has a unique opportunity to educate readers. BillDeanCarter, you should check out WP:LOW, which describes how to write a bibliography, discography, etc. I have already invoked it above. I believe that many of your concerns are addressed there. Perhaps a sentence could be added about the necessity of forking at times (this would have to be discussed on the talk page, of course). Obviously many editors have already done this, so there is a lot of precedent (there is even a category, as you know). In fact, the page itself references some lists already. All of which should demonstrate to those debating here that this is an accepted and necessary practice amongst those of us who write about art and artists. Awadewit Talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a straight vote or do the best arguments win? Because I would say that the "delete" votes both then and now have flawed reasoning. Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles."-BillDeanCarter 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is precisely the place for a bibliography of a writer since that bibliography (in toto) is what made them notable. Furthermore, wikipedia is not paper which allows us to include these bibliographies rather than limit ourselves to a mere mention of a few works (which would inevitably fail to represent the writer's oeuvre). Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what about WP:NOT#REPOSITORY? I haven't heard a response to that one yet Black Harry (T|C) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I retract that statement having not seen the reply above Black Harry (T|C) 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, they would be able to help solve this. And thanks for asking us before you did so Black Harry (T|C) 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A plea for some civility[edit]

The man is important, and he has an article. If any of his works can be shown to be important enough to have an article by itself, it could. But that's no reason to have two. Only the most exceptional authors indeed with the longest number of works make sense for that. After all, he is just a journalist who became an important screenwriter. Perhaps he actually has hundreds of items, not just the 30 listed here--many active journalists do, for they write one a week. I wouldn't think it reasonable to include them all either in the article or a separate article. That sort of coverage is for a specialized bibliography, not a general encyclopedia. I have no animus about the man or the article. But I really wonder at such a duplicative article: WP is NOT A FANZINE. I would like an article on every even moderately significant writer--I am certainly an inclusionist about this; but i would like one article, not two. DGG 20:58, 15 May 2007 (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.
More