Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There was a split of views between those who regard this as essentially an uncoordinated list and those who see encyclopaedic potential. The addition of the prose intro has moved the page from being a pure list to more of an article. However, the intro now presents different problems in that it is largely unsourced and is redolent of OR. There is a small majority for deletion but not sufficient, in my judgement, to delete the article. As an editorial matter, rapid sourcing is required or significant content removal would be justified. Meanwhile, as a post AfD editorial action, I am moving the page to Fictional worms which better represents its present state. TerriersFan 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional worms
An collection of trivial, loosely associated topics. These things have nothing more in common than being long and round. Eyrian 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but add references and revise introduction to better indicate connection of items in list. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So easy to say. There is no connection. One cannot simply declare that they should be found and therefore the article should be kept. Burden of proof doesn't work that way. --Eyrian 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a connection, based on the viking concept of the serpent dragons they called 'wurms'. These new fictional inventions, by writers like Donaldson and Pratchett are explicitly based on legends which are over a thousand years old. Nick mallory 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh really? What makes you so sure Herbert was thinking of the myth? Or any of the others? The article has turned from a trivial list of loosely associated topics to a few paragraphs of original research supplemented by an unrelated, trivial list of loosely associated topics. --Eyrian 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because, for example, Herbert's sandworms can only be killed if each of their segments is killed. This is exactly the same as the viking myth which held that giant 'wurms' could reassemble themselves if chopped into pieces.  The novels by Donaldson - the worm at the end of the world - and Terry Pratchett cited are clearly based on two other viking wurm legends as they are simply identical to them. Nick mallory 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so, the similarities are according to your own research? --Eyrian 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unnecessary trivia, doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As with the other articles, there will presumably be found good references to indicate that academics and popular critics both think there is a connection. Typically, the reviews of one work discussing the significant characters & plot elements will compare it with others. I would not want to say flat out "there is no connection", italicized or not, unless I were sure of it, not making a pure guess. It disappoints me to see people deleting instead of even trying to improve. I had thought that at least we all agreed it was a comprehensive encyclopedia, not limited by individual failures of imagination and understanding. There's an immense amount here I do not understand and do not see how any reasonable person could think important (professional wrestling comes to mind just as one of many examples). But I see clearly that other people--and apparently rational ones at that--do think they are important, and I accept that unfortunate fact.  I'm the one who's limited, and the encyclopedia should transcend my own limitations. DGG (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As with the other articles, there will presumably be found good references to indicate that academics and popular critics both think there is a connection - I prefer reasons to be fact-based rather than faith-based, myself. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Provides no information about worms, about the works cited, or about how the two might be related. A collection of unrelated "I spotted something called (or in some cases not called) a worm" references does not constitute an encyclopedia article. By the way, I will say flat out "there is no connection." Fails WP:NOT #1. Deor 00:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another loose collection of bullet points of things that various people have spotted elsewhere. Instead of handwaving about how someday maybe there might could be reliable-source-derived prose holding this together, how's about some actual reliable-source-derived prose holding this together? --Calton | Talk 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Heroes from fiction get plenty of attention, as do villains and anti-heroes from fiction. What's their connection?  That they are fictional.  That's enough of a connection for Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia's other lists of fictional topics.  So why not worms?  Will anyone ever make use of the page?  Most likely.  There are lists of far sillier topics than this on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia covers fiction in as much depth as reality.  This list certainly qualifies for coverage.  The Transhumanist 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is now being rewritten as an article. The concept of the 'Wurm' comes from Viking legends over a thousand years old and there are direct links between those legends and contemporary uses of the idea in fiction and film.  It's not an loose collection of bullet points but a literary idea which has evolved over a millenium in myth, story and legend.  The other non monsterous 'worms' could well be removed but that's a judgement call someone else can make. Perhaps the article could be renamed along the lines of "worms in legend and fiction" perhaps.  Nick mallory 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not the place to come and document every time a worm appears in a work of fiction.   Delete per list of loosely associated topics Corpx 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article combines dragons with invertebrate worms into an artificial grouping for an artificial page. There is no connection between dragons from pre-Christian Nordic myths and fictional man-eating earthworms. It's like listing blacksmiths and silversmiths with "people named Smith". It's not a valid taxonomic unit, and thus not a proper unitary subject. MarkinBoston 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Such kinds of "articles" damage wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopedia. --32X 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs to specify inclusion criteria: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." lists --Coppertwig 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Split. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the subject matter(s), but "worm" in the sense of "giant serpent" and "worm" in the sense of "earthworm" have nothing in common in their fictional treatments, and should get different lists. RandomCritic 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: agreed. These articles need expansion, not deletion. DGG (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems tightly associated enough to me. Artw 22:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The prose portion is salvagable and can used elsewhere. The list? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 30 August 2007 (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.