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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Joker, Bibliography of the Penguin, Bibliography of Two-Face, Bibliography of Catwoman[edit]

I honestly don't feel either way. I would like to see what Wikipedians think about articles such as those. One can argue that Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, and that this is complete listcruft. Otherwise, one can argue that this is simply a very, very long list of references and sources. I want to see some consensus and arguments before deciding myself. Abstain for now. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm a huge fan of comic books, but I don't see the relevance of having a list for every appearance of every notable villain for a particular super-hero. I'm interested to see the arguments for/against this though.--Isotope23 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. --- GWO
Delete Delete per GWO.--Auger Martel 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, the publisher can record and present this type of bibliography on its site if they so choose. While this seems comprehensive, it is highly unlikely it would ever be kept up for years to come (beyond points already made).Markeer 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hummm... Well, I started this thing for three reasons: 1) I wanted to contribute in some way, 2) I am often annoyed that I cant find a good bibliography of a particular villian so that I can pick and choose what comics I want to get, and 3) It seemed like a good, informative idea at the time. I suppose this page could be (in a way) considered a reference page for all of the information in the main article. But, if it's just useless, well, then there's no use in it staying. =) --Kelly Chartier 01:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that the information within these articles is indiscriminate. None of the examples listed are pertinent and I don't think that these bibliographies violate the spirit of the policy. Morever, as stated in Wiki is not paper, there is no reason why there shouldn't be an article for every Simpsons character and a table listing every episode. As such, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a complete bibliography for these prominent members of Batman's rogues gallery. As for the argument that upkeep would be a problem, I don't agree. With the exception of Catwoman, none of these characters is featured in a monthly series. While I would agree that trying to maintain a catalog of every appearance by Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man is a fool's errand, those are special cases (and if some fool volunteers, I won't stop him). However, on average, I don't anticipate that there will be more than one or two new issues to add to these lists each month. This is easily managable. Also, as far as whether the publisher chooses to create a similar bibliography, I don't think that's relevant. Either this information does belong on Wikipedia or it doesn't. This is my vote to say that it does. GentlemanGhost 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Delete I'm pro merging them into pages, but ... it's a list and I'm not sure it serves good purpose. An argument could be made that 'Villain Appearances' might be encyclopedic, but I'm leaning to no. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice -Please add AfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board and check the notice board for the same.--Chris Griswold 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Condense and merge.--Chris Griswold 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I'd put my two cents in about merging: I don't think it should be done for continuous characters. For smaller characters, merging the bibliography with the article will be fine, but for a bigger character the bibliography will be too big and the article will look like crap. I made this mistake and people hated it. --Kelly Chartier 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the kind of thing I'd happily put an external link to, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia in this form. It's too much like a primary source. Mango juice^talk 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that these should be merged into their respective main articles. DiegoTehMexican 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia's Comics Project still has a lot of blanks and stubs. Other websites can handle in-depth chronologies such as this. I agree with above, seems too much like a primary source for Wikipedia. Cybertooth85 01:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These bibliographies were apparently split from their source articles due to length. As these bibliographies help to establish verifiability of the source articles and provide useful references for research, I highly recommend they be kept. Actually, if possible, I'd recommend similar bibliographies for other characters from comic books and other fictional sources for the purposes of verifiability and research use. - CNichols 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no harm in keeping them up. They're handy referances and I have fun contributing to them. I'd also like to work on other characters. --GORE-ILLA 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these characters are major popular-culture icons with considerable mainstream recognition beyond comics fandom, and all have had their own books seperate from the main Batman/Detective Comics series. I wouldn't like to see this same level of detail for just any random character, but for the likes of Joker, Penguin, Two-Face, and Catwoman it seems reasonable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, my response is a given, but I thought I should put in an argument: personally, I would love to simply have a link to a website that has a bibliography that is complete. But there is no such thing. And, if there were, it would rely on the webmaster to update the bibliography. Since everyone can contribute to these bibliographies, chances are that the bibliographies would be the most complete. Which is very nice for collectors or researchers. --Kelly Chartier 05:46, 26 June 2006 (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.