Deletion of Dan Savage bibliography

Comment: absurd" sounds like ,  has never precluded bibliographies/discographies/lists of work in biographies. So we're left with a claim that this isn't a spinout.  *puzzled look*  I don't see a basis given for that claim, but if the argument is one of article history, I don't agree. Even if the spinout criteria were meant to be read that pedantically (and they're not),  merging the articles would produce an article which the guideline rticle Size would ask us to immediately split, and the biblio would be the natural fracture point. Which would leave us back where we started. Any putative argument that we should merge this just to split it again would be either pointless or pointed.  As an aside: I see a number of articles about Michael Connelly|authors, scholars, Roman Vishniac|artists and Nero (band)|musicians whose bibliographies, discographies and lists of work could be more harmoniously presented to our reader in segregated splits. In many cases, particularly with respect to less notable creators, the lists tend to unduly dominate the prose, but deleting said lists subtracts value from the reader. We should split lists of work more often, in my view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOT||WP:A)

Comment: According to the |Notability criteria for stand-alone lists, there should be independent, reliable sources discussing the works of Dan Savage as a group. Perhaps the books under ''Further reading'' provide that support, but if so I can't access the relevant parts. If someone were to explicitly provide the sources as footnotes, I'd be happy to vote "keep". I strongly recommend finding those sources: they would provide the knockout argument
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Notable works of notable author, all cited. "Wikipedia is not a catalogue", is not a "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not" topic, and "limited impact" is not a measure of otability. Admin should try to do better with their NPOV language for deletion noms, and watch the use of words like "absurd" in a deletion nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)