Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graboid


 * 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. Discussions about merging should take place on the talk page. NW ( Talk ) 18:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Graboid

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fictional creature. Fails WP:N. Article purely unsourced WP:OR and fansite material. Had been tagged for issues since August 2007. Tried cleaning up and removing all the made up stuff that was not in a single film, trimmed the ridiculously excessive plot and was left with a very short stub. Article fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Prod and maintenance tags were removed and all OR and blatantly false information (graboids being portrayed by someone?) was restored by User:Colonel Warden without any explanation. Possibly redirectable to Tremors since there is no "Tremors" series page. Beyond that, all relevant points of the graboids are already appropriately covered in the main film articles and they have no real-world notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The notable central monster in a notable series of movies and TV shows. Because it appeared many times, it is sensible to have a common article for the creature to save duplication in the multiple articles about the individual movies and shows.  This is what we do with Daleks, Cylons, Klingons, Triffids etc and this is just the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to duplicate. The others you list are not mindless creatures about which about all you can validly state is that it is a "big worm-like creature". This is not a species nor a character, but a basic monster easily explained in a sentence or two. An entire article is not needed for that. At best, if there were a proper series article for Tremors, a paragraph on the three might be appropriate there.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable fiction creature per WP:N and WP:WAF and as an unoriginal research. That nomination suggests "possibly redirectable" is a call for a talk page discussion, but clearly no reason/need to delete.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tremors. The sources are insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. I was surprised that more sources aren't out there, given the creativity and success of the monster concept, but that was the searches revealed. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that an nice article could be made on them, but I doubt they're called Graboids by the sources, making it hard to find sources. Sources would have to be actually read instead of searched by google. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't they be called graboid in any reliable source? It is the term used in the film. I'd question any source that didn't call them that. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See The Science in Science Fiction which just refers to them as giant worms. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable fiction creatures. Simonm223 (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the whole article boils down to "worm-like creatures", and a hat-load of cites that other crap exists. Tremors needs a series article, and this information could go there. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. They appeared in some films, but this isn't a notable creature. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss merge as a graboid is THE plot device in all the Tremors films. No graboids, no Tremors. Real world sourcing exists in at least 36 articles and 22 books which do call them by that name, which would seem indicative of options being worth discussing... specialy as precedent is already in place for articles on major plot devices such as Death Star, Lightsaber, Klingon, Starship Enterprise, etc... Colonel Warden has it right. But deletion? Naw. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very strong argument for merging; given that they are so central to Tremors, why should they be treated separately? Abductive  (reasoning) 06:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, as explained above, there are multiple movies, TV episodes, games, models, &c. and we have multiple articles covering these. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a philosophical point. First off, I read the sources, and they are not sufficient to support a separate article; they lack the analysis required. Secondly, is it reasonable to suppose that users want to read about these things in their own article? Judging from the page views, the article on the first film is consistently more popular than the article on the monsters. Having read the article on the first film, users can then follow the story of the monsters in context through the articles on the sequels. Since none of the film articles are particularly long, this is not so much to ask them to endure, is it? It's the same information; we are arguing about which articles to place it in. The only difference between our positions is that you want the information duplicated. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars/Trek examples are of non-central plot devices, but they have plenty of secondary sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per MQS above. I would support a selective merge and redirect to a series article, but as one does not exist I'm not sure whether keeping seperate or redirecting to the first film article is preferable.  In any case, actual deletion is unnecessary, and making a reasonably likely search term a red link undesirable.  Eluchil404 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.