Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd 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   keep. See talk page 山本一郎 (会話) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional worms
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

List which fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Unreferenced, and no significant work has been done on it since the last AFD. I'm pretty sure that most of the introduction is pure original research. Claritas § 21:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - original research. Metamagician3000 (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. What is the original thesis here?  The nomination claims to be "pretty sure" but provides not a scrap of detail nor evidence.  When I start to check out the lead, I seem to have no difficulty finding sources for its claims. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * As a child, I lay awake in fear of the Lambton Worm. Compiling a list of our articles about such notable topics is not original research - it is a help and guide to our readership.  If parts of the article need work, this is a reason to improve them in accordance with our editing policy.  I shall make a little improvement now, drawing on sources such as The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy.  Bringing together works such as Dune and Tremors is not OR - it is a statement of the obvious for which there are many sources.


 * Note also that the reference in the nomination to WP:NOTCATALOG is quite spurious as that refers to sales catalogs such as Sears. What we have here is a list - a navigational concept which is well established on Wikipedia, performing the useful service of an encyclopedic index.  This irrelevant rationale shows the feeble, over-reaching nature of this nomination for which WP:NOTAGAIN seems the most appropriate shortcut.


 * Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the notcatalog reference. I was unaware that it pointed to that part of the guideline - I thought it referred to catalogue as a synonym of directory. My mistake. Claritas § 12:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR and per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR.Other such lists should be deleted too. This is what categories are for. Verbal chat  15:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:NOTDIR. Another unreferenced list which contains many non-notable entries.  The lead of this article is terrible and does not follow WP:WAF.   Snotty Wong   talk 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This, like most all "list of fictional animals" articles, is of a topic far too broad (per WP:SALAT) to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. The result is nothing but a directory listing of every fictional character our editors can think of. Another viable option would be to rename and revamp. A verifiable article on how worms have been used in fiction (but not such a neverending list) may be acceptable, but it would necessitate deleting at least the namedropping "worms in popular culture" section of this article.  Them From  Space  09:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT provides List of fictional dogs as an explicit example of a valid list. Our topic is therefore fully compliant with this guideline.   Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. That example is in a completely different section of the guideline, which deals with the naming of lists and not the content of lists. WP:SALAT states Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.).  Replace "brand names" with "fictional worms" and the argument loses none of its weight.  Them  From  Space  16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline makes the sensible point that lists should be divided into segments of a reasonable size. This is what has been done with the list of fictional animals - it has been subdivided by type of animal so producing lists of size comparable with List of generic and genericized trademarks, say.  The list before us therefore fully complaint with the guideline and the specific example provided by the guideline confirms this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This, like the other articles of this sort, are appropriate encyclopedic  content. How are they too broad? if they need division by genre, the articles can be split. If they are significant figures in notable works, it's properly inclusive, not at all excessive. Lists in general are good navigational content, and we should not remove them if they might be helpful.  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT (as Themfromspace points out). Tavix | Talk  16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT explicitly supports a list of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've said that on everyone's comment that references WP:SALAT. You have four people all referencing the same guideline, maybe we're not as crazy as you might think. Tavix | Talk  05:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most of the articles mentioned in the list are referenced. Any un-referenced list entries could be removed. The Library of Congress has a subject heading 'Worms - fiction', (sorry no permalink, but it can be found thru the LOC search link ). That shows it's a recognized & notable topic, and the article has a decent, even if only partially referenced, intro. Novickas (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's almost entirely unreferenced, and has all of the SALAT issues Themfromspace points out. An infinite index precedent. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT explicitly supports a list of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Novickas (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No OR nor IINFO here. No objection to NN entries being trimmed. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Colonel Warden 's comments are misleading. WP:SALAT does not support lists of fictional entities at all, or provide the list of fictional dogs as an example. The list is provided as an example of naming conventions, not as a suitable topic for a list. Claritas § 15:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The existence of this example within the guideline is clear evidence of its acceptability.  We have numerous lists of this kind - see Lists of fictional animals - and so the suggestion that this example is structurally defective or abnormal is blatantly false.  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. It's just being used as an example of a naming convention. Acceptability is determined by consensus, not policy. The fact that this list does not only cover worms, but also types of mythological serpents is one of the main arguments for deletion. There's not a clear consensus whether any of these lists of fictional animals should exist, so I've been reviewing them and nominating the most defective for deletion. It's my belief that these lists fail WP:IINFO and other policies on content, but I think consensus should determine what happens to them. Claritas § 15:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clearly our well-established consensus that list of fictional animals are ok. Your attempt to change this is just your personal opinion which in no way represents the numerous editors who have created, maintained and read these lists.  You seem to be picking at the fringes of these articles rather than starting with the common and substantial cases such as horses, cats and dogs.  The idea that we should not have lists which assist navigation to articles such as Black Beauty, Rin Tin Tin and Garfield seems quite absurd.  The Lambton Worm is perhaps of narrower interest but there seems to be no reason why we should not cover such notable cases too. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  The fact that this list does not only cover worms, but also types of mythological serpents is one of the main arguments for deletion. - And it's a blatantly wrong argument for deletion, for the simple reason that it is something that can be dealt with simply editing out the non-reasonable entries. Our deletion policy says that if a problem can be fixed by editing, it doesn't need deletion. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking one of these in dire need of deletion check out List of fictional penguins (along with the equally problematic Penguins in popular culture).  Them From  Space  15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a problem with Tux? Tsk.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not at all! That's a pretty good pop culture-related article.  Them From  Space  16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tux is one of the articles in that list and WP:SALAT encourages to provides lists of this sort to assist reader navigation to fine articles of this sort.  User:Claritas has now just nominated that list for deletion too.  This seems rather intemperate when we have no clear consensus for deletion here and the guideline so clearly contradicts this crusade. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * * How about accepting that I have a different point of view from you on this matter and get on with editing ? I don't complain about your zeal in rescuing articles when you !vote keep in discussions. This is obviously not a disruptive nomination - because there are plenty of editors who support deletion, and there are arguments based on policy for deletion. Claritas § 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The position is not symmetrical because it is far more work to improve an article than to make a drive-by nomination for deletion. Making multiple nominations in parallel rather than waiting for the outcome of some test cases such as this is vexatious because of the extra work which is generated.  We already have a sensible guideline which is provided to forestall such activity.  Failing to take heed of this is contrary to our orderly deletion process and so is disruptive. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a test case concerning fictional entities. You can find it at WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations (3rd nomination). My continual participation in the debate demonstrates that this is not a "drive-by deletion nomination", and I remind you that WP:BURDEN applies for those who wish to keep content. I should make sure that this isn't a undisputedly suitable topic, which I have done so. It's clear from the discussion that there are arguments both ways. If you want to keep this list, rewrite the introduction and source every entry. Claritas §  16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made some improvements already, as noted above, and now User:Novickas has picked up the torch and is doing fine work. I myself shall be turning my attention to the other lists in question, insofaras time permits.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Most seem to be referenced via their own articles, so it's not unreferenced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. And strongly protest Colonel Warden's attempt to characterize this nomination as disruptive. Reyk  YO!  22:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the nomination of List of fictional penguins as a spinoff from this discussion that seemed disruptive. Starting an expanding wave of nominations without giving time for the outcomes of the first one(s) to be settled tends to generate more excitement and drama than is sensible.  There should be no need for a rush in a case of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and allow continued improvements.  What was first sent to AFD as an unsourced article is now receiving the attention it needs and the sourcing it requires.  Allowing it to remain and be further improved, improves the project. I will note that the article title is mis-leading.  As the article offers far more than a mere list, and is not about eathworms, I suggest a namechange be discussed to better reflect the sourced content.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a Library of Congress subject heading for 'Worms - fiction'. (That's where I found some of the recent entries.) It's heavy on the children's books, maybe because it seems to use the word Worm in the title as a criterion. But most of the worms listed here play major enough roles in works of fiction to be mentioned in wikilinked articles, even when they're not directly referenced here. An LOC subject heading shows that a reliable source groups them. Novickas (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The LOC designation appears to function as a directory for readers. We are an encyclopedia, which is a step beyond a directory.  If the LOC wrote up an analysis of the list of fictional worms that would be one thing, but just listing a rundown of fictional worms is entirely different.  Them  From  Space  14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LC subject headings are based upon the existence of a literature on the subject. It's the principle by which they're prepared, not as a theoretical list of possible topics.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * and,  are you actually arguing that the criterion for having a list is that someone should have written about how to prepare a list on the subject? There are indeed a few such topics--for example, there are articles and even books on what plays should be in a list of those Shakespeare actually wrote. But that's an extremely restrictive criterion. Almost no list on WP or elsewhere in the world meets it. You're asking that, for example, for a list of cities in X someone has to write a book on how to determine what cities in X should be on a list?  DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like the actual grouping of items in the list to have recieved commentary, to meet the GNG (which lists are not exempt from). It's easy for truly notable lists to meet this criterion, like the list of Shakespeare's plays and more recently AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies. Anything else, as gavin says, is original research. We can't create our own list of items out of thin air and then claim that it meets the notability guidelines just because someone once stated that the item is found in groups. That's silly, but sadly this is how most list entries were created; by users putting random items together and creating their own lists instead of finding truely notable lists to form the backbone of an encyclopedia article.  Them  From  Space  11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: fundamentally inappropriate for an encyclopedia because wikipedia is not a directory of cross-categorizations. Indiscriminate topic for a list. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arguments like a list of fictional worms is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional worms? It is clearly not indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly not as broad to fail WP:SALAT: in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such deletion policy asks us not to delete. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This Afd, as are many in WP, is frustrating because there no fiction in the real chasm (I am inspired by the view of the Grand Canyon at this very moment below me from 36,000 feet) between the DGGs and Wardens who believe in lists and the Gavins and Theme's who don't. As is with the Grand Canyon and this endless chasm, there is neither bridge nor ferry across the chasm and rarely does anyone meet in the middle because its apparently too hard to get to the bottom. I am personally on the side with DGG and Colonel Warden et. al so therefore my keep, but frustrated still by the continuous intractability of these arguments.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe in the encyclopedic value of such lists, and I usually interpret WP:N much more stringently than DGG and Colonel Warden. These lists, if discriminating, are better than the alternatives, which are either no lists or many individual articles. I perceive more consensus on this than you seem to. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This sort of information can be better carried through categories. The list itself is problematic because it does not draw a strong enough distinction between worms and dragons, even mentioning computer worms in the intro, begging the question of whether or not to include fictional computer viruses as well.  Gobonobo  T C 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A wrong argument for deletion, for the simple reason that it is something that can be dealt with simply editing out the non-reasonable entries. Our deletion policy says that if a problem can be fixed by editing, it doesn't need deletion.-- Cycl o pia talk  09:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Delete arguments make good points about problems with article, but that doesn't mean article can't be improved, so deletion is not appropriate.  Articles like this are not uncommon, e.g., List of animals with fraudulent diplomas--Milowent (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2010 (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.