Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandworm (Dune)


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandworm (Dune)‎‎
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The fictional creature Sandworm from the Dune franchise does not seem to meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic since it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the sources cited within the article are from primary sources or non-independent sources. The few ones that are reliable secondary sources do not talk about the fictional creature but about the Dune series, and notability is not inherited, so those sources do not show notability for the fictional creature. A quick search engine test does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that provide information beyond the plot, just unreliable sources and/or primary sources such as the novel Sandworms of Dune, but nothing about reception or significance in the real world, making the article the article a summary-only description with a few mentions about the significance of the Dune series, but not related to the fictional creature itself. With no reliable secondary sources that provide analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional creature itself, I do not believe that the fictional Sandworm as a topic deserves a stand-alone article and therefore the article should be deleted since it does meet the notability guidelines and falls into what what Wikipedia is not. The creature already has enough description in Glossary of Dune terminology. Jfgslo (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Dune Sandworms are covered in enough independent RS to meet the GNG: The Science of Dune, The BBook of Geek, a reference in a commentary on Avatar, and that's just the first two pages of Google Books, which are dominated by the primary fiction sources themselves. Back with Scholar in a few... Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Scholar references include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and more. Sandworms are generally not the central feature of these treatises, but are discussed non-trivially in a couple I sampled. By my clock, that looks like 10 minutes of research since I posted the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. An important aspect in the entire Dune series. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination destroys its own logic at the end when it says "The creature already has enough description in Glossary of Dune terminology." In other words, it is saying that it is quite reasonable that we should cover this topic.  The way in which we do this is therefore a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I really hate it when an AFD creates a findsources template that is such an ineffective search parameter... specially when a bit of sense gives us "Sandworm, Frank Herbert" and provides us so very much more... with the sandworm creature reciving mention and analysis in multiple sources. As a fictional plot device used in multiple novels, the sandworm easily meets WP:GNG.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep based on a perfunctory review of the sources found. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability sources are more than sufficient. I am afraid that I must disagree completely with the suggestion that there is "enough" description in the Glossary; there is almost nothing there, in relation to the role which the sandworms play in Dune's ecology and in relation to the Fremen.  David_FLXD  (Talk) Review me 04:30, 26 July 2012 (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.