Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms


 * 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 Keep - Yomangani talk 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional worms
Badly-defined, limitless, list with no real purpose. May be considered listcruft. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Its an odd list, for sure, but does have some merit, principally because worms have religious meanings in some cultures. scope_creep 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Religious significance in actual cultures does not count as simply "fiction". Tagging articles on religious beliefs as fiction is obviously a non-starter. Bwithh 05:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what it means. Rename it to "List of folkloric, religious, mythological, and fictional worms" if you really feel the need, but to me that seems rather Goldbergian.--SB | T 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete indiscriminate. The Lambton Worm uses the term as synonymous with dragon, a bookworm is not a worm, etc.  It's a list of foctional creatures which match a randomly chosen word. Guy 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from all the other examples that are very significant and are actual worms that you conviently don't mention, you mean.--SB | T 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a strange list, but it is consistent with the List of fictional (animal) genre of articles, and is potentially useful. Non-worm characters can be easily removed via cleanup. hateless 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Such kinds of "articles" damage wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopedia. --32X 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Anything long is included in this list, and I suspect that when cleanup is done, with only worms that aren't just mentioned as being squished once, the one entry will be "Fip, from The Word Eater". -Amarkov babble 05:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense &mdash; there are several entries on the list who are major characters / species in their respective work.--SB | T 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Trivial listcruft. The most significant worms are not actually worms, as per Guy Bwithh 05:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A good worthy list. --Billpg 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While it looks strange at first glance, it's actually part of a series of fictional animal lists. I could certainly see these being useful from a research point of view... for example, if I were writing a kids' book and wanted to include a worm character, I could check this to make sure mine wasn't too similar to any of the existing ones. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. But a lot of them are not actually worms. Guy 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but weeding out the non-worm entries is an editorial decision and does not effect whether the whole article should be deleted. The dragon entries should go (though the list should include a link to Wyrm and the dragon list for the confused.  The bookworm entry does not refer to the real-life insect (fictional, remember?) but to the pop-culture bookworm creature, usualy depicted as a green worm with glasses and holding a book.  An example can be found in the Tiny Toons animated series. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep quirky and odd-ball list but works better than putting all these at worm (disambiguation) which is where it would otherwise go. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the list has value. If something was called a worm then it should go in. Literature and myth should not be bound by modern biological definition. Lumos3 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a good list of worms. If one thinks one doesn't need a list of worms, one may reconsider what one really needs.
 * Keep as there's no problem with letting this article worm its way into the encyclopedia, whereas deleting would open up a whole new can of worms. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of other pages on this encylopedia about fictional animals. Insane99 15:31, 13 November 2006 (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.