Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography
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
— User:Joe, 17:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOT||WP:A (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)