Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Merging the content back, while also supported by many here, is an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of the writings of William Monahan[edit]

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

Article is a review of what Monahan has written. This page should be deleted and any important information should be included in the William Monahan article WhiteKongMan 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC). To add to my reason for nominating this I would like to point out [[WP:Not#Dir]. I didn't realiz people couldn't infer that this is why I nominated it. WhiteKongMan 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Many of the articles listed in the list also seem to fail WP:NOTE WhiteKongMan 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy you cite, cuz it says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles."-BillDeanCarter 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We do not need a listing of every single byline of every single magazine that a particular writer has to his credit. This would establish a very problematic precedent for the listing of every single column that an editorialist or op-ed writer ever got. Otto4711 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fer cryin' out loud, it's a bleeding CV. Note the highlights in prose form on William Monahan and nuke this page. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm on your side but what is CV? WhiteKongMan 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Curriculum vitae"—basically the same thing as a resume. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the main article. Many readers may be interested in exploring the subject's short stories and published articles. Listing his published works in the main article does no harm and could be a useful guide for further reading and research. Cleo123 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :: there is no point in divorcing a bibliography from its origin. -- Simon Cursitor 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Cleo. List of the writings of William Monahan has a nicely referenced bibliography of which I can say that it would be a waste if we were to throw that down the alley. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the most notable writings, if not all of them, into the main article. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: Much of this information is already in the main article; this is an unwarranted fork placing undue weight on the works. Charles Dickens doesn't have a similar article. Arthur Conan Doyle doesn't have a similar article. Neither does Michener, Hemingway, Alger, Burgess, Christie, Wharton, Huxley, Wolfe or any other prolific author I've taken ten minutes out of my life to review.  RGTraynor  13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mention the most notable works in the main article, but no need to merge this entire list. Croxley 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator doesn't cite a single policy and we can't delete articles just because. Yes there are some very minor things in it, but if they are sourced that is not a problem. Having a separate bibliography makes the main article less cluttered. I would suggest that it was renamed "Writings of William Monahan", though. It doesn't matter if no other author has a similar article, all we need to worry about is to make sure that this article conforms to policy, and from what I can see, it does. Pax:Vobiscum 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Directory, and this article is simply a list of writings, some of which link to Non-Wiki sources. Selected writings should be included in the William Monahan main article. Also, despite the fact that he won an Oscar for his screenplay for the Departed, he is not a better writer than Hemingway, Dickens, etc. Black Harry 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does WP:NOT#DIR apply in this case? There are 3 types of articles that fall under that policy and I don't see how you'd fit this article into any one of those three types. A list is not the same thing as a directory. Pax:Vobiscum 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to William Monahan, deleting insignificant reviews, magazine articles, etc. Peterkingiron 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How sad. There is an article called NBA Draft and countless ancillary articles, one up for FA status at the featured article list called 2003 NBA Draft. I sadly wish I had found another outlet to write about William Monahan. Hemingway, Dickens, David Mamet & etc deserve the same treatment that Monahan got (treatment from me that is). I realize Wikipedians fear that every columnist out there will have his/her work listed one by one, though Monahan was more of an artist, who occasionally wrote a cover story, a book review, etc. If he were a columnist with 50 or so articles per newspaper, then that could be summed up in a paragraph or something for each glob. Showing respect for talent is the best thing you can do and having a complete finite account of a journalist's ouevre does no harm. Are we really only interested in having a full account of the 2003 NBA Draft? Having this list of Monahan's writings is what allowed me to write most of the main article to begin with. I'm already getting a hold of more of his stuff, though I'm looking for a better repository for this information. Life goes on. Mine, not here.-BillDeanCarter 09:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's an eloquent paragraph, but do you have any policy or guideline grounds you'd like to submit as a rationale to Keep?  RGTraynor  13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't play that game. I'll say this. William Monahan is notable; that's established. His writings are notable; see the countless mentions of them by New York writers/citizens who lived through those years, especially talking about him after he won his Academy Award. They stirred up shit, his articles, so people remember him. The other good thing about this list I've pulled together, it gives literary context to all his writings, especially the Claude stories that make satirical reference to his career. New York journalists will each tell you their favorite piece of his. I see a problem here, being if the crowd don't know about it then it ain't notable, which is a dangerous way to document history.-BillDeanCarter 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This debate isn't about Monahan's notability, but rather whether this list is appropriate as its own article. A majority of these could and should be added to his main article, and this list deleted as a result. Black Harry 06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Sorry. I forgot about Wikipedia's high standards and barrier to entry.-BillDeanCarter 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "playing a game." Were I the closing admin, and all I was handed by the Keep proponents was that the subject was a hell of a swell fellow who's notable, I'd reason that the argument was equally as valid for Toilet seats used by William Monahan, Women William Monahan have kissed and Sports teams for which William Monahan has been a season ticket holder, but there wasn't any explicit policy grounds to keep those either. Are you comfy with resting on that argument?  RGTraynor  13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just cited policy, will that change your mind now? Also, many authors in that category have written multiple books, whereas Monahan 's list is mostly a collection of articles from magazines or newspapers. Would you want me to make a Bibliography for Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated, whose list would be similar WhiteKongMan 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean Masaruemoto? Are you more knowledgeable on this subject than I? I wrote that article and I'm telling you his most significant works are NOT already detailed in that article. Anyways, I'm sure the drivel will continue to pour into here, full of Deletes and I watch the Simpsons, whaz yer fave episode? Wikipedia cannot be MySpace. This is too important of a web site.-BillDeanCarter 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if his most significant works aren't in his main article, its because YOU have FAILED to include them in the article. WhiteKongMan 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What an arrogant little shit. A guy (me) comes to Wikipedia, contributes more in writing than WhiteKongMan could ever do in a decade, and you have the gall to tell me I have FAILED? If anyone wants to hear the complete story about Monahan's career as a writer then they'll Keep this list, and let it reaches its end. WhiteKongMan you should leave Wikipedia and let writers do their job.-BillDeanCarter 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tompw, no legitimate reason given for deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge a slimmed down version with William Monahan - I just don't see how notable this list is on its own: many of the entries seem rather trivial. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not citing any useful policy. Slimming down a list that isn't even complete yet? Popular culture (TV eps, Sports matches) is not a standard to be used for notability. Please stop fueling this idiotic AfD. How dumbed-down do we want our culture? What has happened to human beings who actually read an author's works? 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.-BillDeanCarter 10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sadistic. I put the List of works by Neil Gaiman up for deletion. Go vote to Keep it or to Delete it.-BillDeanCarter 11:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disrupting Wikipedia simply to prove a point is never advisable. See WP:POINT.Cleo123 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per concerns about no clear policy being cited. This is useful information, and relevant. Merging will make the parent article too long Lurker 11:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you say I didn't cite any policy, I would like to ask you to point out a policy about the length of articles. WhiteKongMan 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article size should clear things up for you. Hope you find it useful! Lurker 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If both articles were combined in full, the size wold be about 53 KB. However, many of the writings listed seem non-notable,and could be left out, reducing the size to around 45-48KB, which wouldn't fall under the 'Probably should be divided range (over 60KB). Also, merging wouldn't effect the readability of the main article, as it would just be adding a list. WhiteKongMan 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a Reference a similar debate involing a list of Aaron Sorkin's writings was just settled, with the decision made to delete and merge. And another debate involving Bruno Maddox's writing is also on going, despite BillDeanCarter's efforts to derail the debate by improperly moving the page. Black Harry 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an example of long lists that are separate articles and sections in the author biography, respectively, are: Bibliography of Isaac Asimov and Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien (yes, that is a redirect to a section - I wish more people used those). Also of interest is Category:Bibliographies by author - a whole category of such list articles. Some of these list articles are split out for size reasons, some should probably be merged to the author articles. Carcharoth 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but WhiteKongMan noted in a response to a previous comment about that catagory that a majority of those bibliographies involve novels, not a handful of short stories. And the list in question contains mainly articles in newspapers and magazines. Would you like me to make an article on WRKO personality and Boston Herald Columnist Howie Carr's writings? He to has written one novel and numerous other works, but that would immedaitly be deleted, as this article should have been. Black Harry 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Carcharoth 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points if you live in Lalaland and Neverland all at the same time, and haven't figured out yet that Monahan wasn't a columnist and this is an incredibly difficult list to compile.-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ever think that the list was difficult to make because the writings on the list are not notable? And since when did the difficulty in writing an article have any relevance concerning whether to keep or delete itBlack Harry 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per basic common sense that what is of value here should be merged to William Monahan. Pointless fork. Eusebeus 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to William Monahan. Let the editors there decide what to do with the material, such as pruning and consolidating to get the balance right. Carcharoth 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm THE editor at William Monahan. I decided to fork this material because I got a hold of more and more stuff. Have you seen Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson? All of you should be reading instead of voting to eradicate a very difficult list to come by that anyone with a modicum of sense would keep.-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than telling us what we should be reading, perhaps you should read WP:OWN your own self. Whatever your work on various articles, you do not get to decide in isolation how much detail authors are to be accorded, and your contributions are not uniquely exempted from consensus and peer review ... the more so in that you are not the only editor on this article (not counting anon IPs, there are 27 other editors this calendar year). I'd suggest looking for encyclopedias where you could work without your contributions being subject to outside review or editing, but I suspect they don't exist.  RGTraynor  00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back on the basis on the content; "list" also contains a long section on the criticism of one particular book, apparently removed from the main article as well as the actual list of works--in other words, its two sections of the article pulled out without any reason. There may be some addition previous editing dispute involved, because i can't see the sense of this. DGG 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • JOURNALISTS WHO SPAKE OF MONAHAN: Business Week's Jon Fine: "Anyway, Monahan's piece was great, as was most of his stuff he wrote for the Press back then. It's a minor drag that it all seems pretty much lost now, but things have turned out pretty well for him." Author Dawn Eden: "I remember Bill from 10 years ago as charming, libertarian-leaning, with a razor-sharp wit that he used in print to anger as many people as possible. Monahan's most notorious New York Press piece, "Dr. Rosenthal, I Presume" (6/21/95), was a devil's-advocate response to a New York Times op-ed by A.M. Rosenthal that had recommended the United States spend $100 million to eradicate female genital mutilation in Africa." and journalist William Georgiades "A decade ago, Oliver Stone’s one and only novel was kindly reviewed by William Monahan, who went on to write the very funny novel “Light House” (Riverhead). Since then, Monahan has written screenplays for Ridley Scott’s “The Kingdom of Heaven” and Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed,” and this weekend he’s nominated for an Oscar for the latter."-BillDeanCarter 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a bit fleshier than most lists, but the article itself is long enough so splitting out the material makes sense and I thought we were heading toward fleshier lists these days. Keep based on policy, WP:NOT#Dir is not applicable, since this is not a directory, such as a compilation of zip codes for reference purposes, or a list of loosely associated material. If WP:Not#Dir applied, we'd have to say a list of Shakespeare's writings failed the test as well. Likewise, WP:NOTE goes to notability of a subject for an article, not what is included. I fail to find a reason here to delete, other than "I don't like it", or, perhaps, some just don't like Mr. Carter, who is being somewhat uncivil here.38.112.153.190 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the validity of the above comment, please see this. 66.65.54.63 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I forgot to sign in before making the above comment, which is me. I found this page from Wiki's front page, and found the other list via this one - the fact that my comment went on the other one first was simply a question of how I was navigating Wiki at the time. Yes, Mr. Carter seems to have added a bit of canvassing to various other bits of incivility: it did not affect my view. As to the above anonymous contribution, please try to assume a bit of good faith. This is the kind of posting that throws some fuel on what are already flames - I hope the closing administrator will discount those posting that do not seem motivated by the merits of the case.A Musing 13:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Carter has cleary violated WP:Canvas, and he should face repercussions for this, as well as the tone he has taking regarding this and other pet projects of his Black Harry 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read WP:Canvas more closely, and consider it's suggestions for remedial action in a sensible fashion - as noted above, his post had no impact. You may also want to consider whether a single post to one person is a canvass. What "repercussions" are you suggesting - how ominous that "repercussions" sounds! This one's just a guy frustrated with the way others have behaved here thankful that someone's judging on the merits. Now that I've posted and seen a bunch of folks in glass houses running up ready to throw stones, I've got more sympathy for the guy. A Musing 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regardless of the impact his post had, his intent was to get your support to keep one of his pet projects safe from deletion. Also, not sure if sympathy would be considered a legit reason to keep an article. And as for repercussions, I would suggest stripping him of his Barnstar, not only for the canvas thing but also because of the tone he has taken in this debate and others, the attack on people who support these deletions on his userpage, his blatant attempt to sabotage a legit debate on the merits of a Bruno Maddox list by moving the list's page, and his bad-faith nomination of another list for deletion. Black Harry 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Read Here to see another potential violation of WP:Canvas by Carter. I'm not sure how many users responded to that post on this page and voted keep, but this should remove any doubt that Carter was canvassing. He clearly was intent on finding people sympathetic to his cause, and if this isn't canvassing what is? Black Harry 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per 38.112.153.190 above. - Shudda talk 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the above comment, although I do not agree people should be instructing others whether to vote delete or keep, I do believe this article should not be deleted. A merge would make sense, however as the main article is above 32kB I think it's better to keep them separate. This discussion seems to be very heated on both sides, and I would urge the closing admin to consider WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. - Shudda talk 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' or merge. An ego trip seems to be the only validation of this article's continued existence. Someone above suggested leaving it to future editors to prune, consolidate, etc. and that's good advice. The subject matter here is the reason the author obtains an article. While not exactly civil, some sarcastic suggestions above hit the mark exactly.--Buckboard 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: First, establishing a web directory is not allowed. Second, the author is barely sufficiently known to be mentioned. Third, these are trivial articles and transient publications with only slightly more life and peer review than a web posting. Fourth, the stuff, such as it is, should be a single sentence in the author's article. Fifth, the title is unsearchable. Sixth, the information is indescriminate. Is that enough reasons? Utgard Loki 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to actually have a sensible discussion about this list once I've completed it. I come from a background where people share writers with each other, and where people cut out, or point links to each other of what they think is really innovative writing. We're celebrating featured lists in this week's Signpost and it would be great if more bibliographies started showing up at WP:FLC. Lists of writings are in a class of their own because they're almost never trivial.-BillDeanCarter 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sensible, dispassionate discussion would have been nice, but after a week of insults, spamming nonsense and bad faith noms on this and similar AfDs, perhaps you'll forgive us for a healthy dose of skepticism regarding your professed desire for one at this late date.  RGTraynor  16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this debate is seven days old, and it appears that most valid points have already been brought up, and that the same opinions are being repeated continually. As such, I believe that this debate should be closed soon, regardless of the outcome. Black Harry 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Quick Note the Bruno Maddox Debate, which involved a similar article, just closed with deletion as the result Black Harry 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am deeply disturbed by some of the arguments being made here. Many of the editors seem to be making arguments based on their personal opinion of or knowledge of (or lack thereof) of the subject.
  • Monahan is notable because he is a writer, thus a list of his writings are relevant to the major reason he has been included in wikipedia.
  • One part of the argument seems to be that only "great" writers should have their entire bibliographies listed, but to assemble a bibliography only of so-called "great" writers such as Charles Dickens, who by the way was a journalist as well and who does not have a bibliography, would perpetuate the view that there is a canon of great writers. This idea has been rejected by literary critics, the experts in the field (wikipedia requires that its editors rely on experts, remember?).
  • Another part of the argument has focused on the idea that these writings are irrelevant and ephemeral, therefore they should not all be listed. To this I would answer, first, that wikipedia is not paper. Second, you do not know what will become relevant or interesting to people in the future. Teturning to Charles Dickens as an example, many of his novels were published in periodicals piece by piece. They were "ephemeral," but of course, they aren't important. Also, let me give examples of other "obscure" writers with lists of works that I have created that might be open to this attack List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood and List of works by Joseph Priestley. One reason that these lists, like the Monahan list, is so useful is because the information is so hard to access anywhere else. Wikipedia is providing a unique service to the world in making this information so easily accessible (in my case, each of these bibliographies is only available in a single book).
  • One proposal was to list only Monahan's "notable" writings, but who is supposed to decide that? The editor of the page? That doesn't sound like NPOV to me.
  • Another proposal was to merge the list into the article. The list is much too long to merge into the article, much like the lists I created.
  • In my opinion, many of these editors are establishing a dangerous precedent. They are essentially arguing: "I don't think this person is important or will be important in the future, so we shouldn't bother to list all of his works." Awadewit Talk 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not complete.-BillDeanCarter 04:08, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_writings_of_William_Monahan&oldid=1142221776"