Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilton Als bibliography

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 merge to Hilton Als. No WP:PAG based argument for retention was presented. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Als bibliography

Hilton Als bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Als is a regular columnist in a weekly publication. Having a complete bibliography of his articles is pointless –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my remarks at Talk:Hilton Als#Proposed merge with Hilton Als bibliography. Beginning a deletion discussion while the merge discussion remains open isn't particularly helpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The content of this article naturally belongs to the Hilton Als article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I have no particular objection to merging, I created this separate bibliography page in March 2014 because of the volume of his work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sunwin1960: Thanks, I know what a bibliography is. Why do you believe it is necessary for Wikipedia to have a bibliography of all articles written by a journalist with a regular gig? This is not in fact normal. Even your linked page links to the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, and I can't imagine this passes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My logic is: if an author is notable enought to have a Wikipedia entry, then their full bibliography should be listed. If that bibliography is quite lengthy, particularly with articles, reviews, interviews etc., then I consider moving the bulk of the material into a separate bibliography article, just to make the main page flow more easily. Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is lengthy because, again, he is a journalist who has a regular gig with a weekly publication. It is not reasonable for Wikipedia to list every article he has written. You seem to acknowledge yourself that a bibliography of this length is inappropriate! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2019 (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.