Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Earthworm Jim items

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 to delete, which defaults for now to keep. There seems to be a growing consensus (but not yet enough to close a deletion discussion that way) to merge this back into the Earthworm Jim parent article. A proposed merger may be in order, I'll leave that to the talkpages. So, no consensus to delete, also no consensus as to "how" to keep it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earthworm Jim items

List of Earthworm Jim items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources and is just an in-universe repetition of items used in the Earthworm Jim video game series. This information only needs a brief mention in the video game articles, and not a whole un notable unreferenced article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Is this even a copyvio? Potatoswatter (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral/merge, see below Needs to cite sources, of course. Like these: EWJ 1 guide book and EWJ 2 Guide book. Like it or lump it, this kind of stuff is well liked by a large number of readers and editors of wikipedia. Deleting it as cruft will only cause new articles about each individual item to be brought up by new readers/editors. It has been consensus that game characters (hardly more or less notable than the items in lots of cases) be allowed as lists in order to better forestall the urge to make individual articles. Calling it cruft doesn't help. One person's cruft is another person's passion. That isn't to say that we shouldn't delete things because people may be passionate about it. but it follows just as well that we shouldn't delete things because people are dispassionate about them either. Wikipedia is not paper. this list (when properly sourced) will not drag down the overall quality of the encylopedia and if it does, it will not do it more than the added effort of fending off game article after game article will anger and divide the editor base. Protonk (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references and arguments made to keep this article are not helpful; there is no demonstration they have anything to say about the items of the game other than restating what they are, and without notability, issues such as not paper or "I don't like it" don't even come into play. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say what the references said. I said they were out there. that removes the sourcing problem. We can assume that the game itself is notable, yes? We don't need to go through that argument. then we are at a point where the sub-portions of the game come into question. Certainly one weapon by itself isn't notable. But as a whole we are guided by WP:CLN on the subject.

# ...since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgement call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article -- if someone else feels that it is notable enough, they can always linkify the mention and create an article anyway

I'm also not sure how "i don't like it" doesn't come into play here. I'm not accusing editors of pushing for deletion because they don't like games, explicitly. I'm saying that they are probably more inlcined to vote that way and that inclination doesn't make for a good argument. "cruft" isn't a complete argument. furthermore, in the cases where "cruft" is shoehorned into a complete argument, "wikipedia isn't paper" provides a pretty coherent response. There is no trade off in keeping this list. We don't face exclusion of a possibly more notable article if this list is kept. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect and in support of editing down to a paragraph or two's worth on main article (per Nifboy/WEIGHT/GAME[GUIDE/CRUFT]). To further the cause, notability is not inherited, and there are no reliable sources used to establish realworld notability. --Izno (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, that's why we have WP:FICTION and guidelines like WP:CLN and WP:SAL. And I agree with you about the sourcing. It isn't in the article as of right now. I'm not opposed to adding this to a list on the main article, but we've got to clear afd and adda merge tag for that. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, but WP:WEIGHT is a policy, while the others guidelines. The main article really should contain the more notable items if they really do matter much to the game; in prose, rather than a list. Furthermore, while the items can doubtless be cited for what they are, I doubt that they will have third party, reliable sources to establish that they are real world noteworthy and thus worthy of their own article. WP:FICT and SAL are essentially clauses of Notability, so I would think that notability takes precedence, which is in turn subject to RS and NPOV. --Izno (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, but I don't think (not that it matters) that WP:WEIGHT is the appropriate policy here. Sure, if there aren't reliable sources, there isn't an article, but it isn't as though this article was formed to put forth a controversial opinion about the Plasma burster. I think the appropriate guidance is WP:GAMECRUFT, Pt. 3 (as I say below), because it specifically disallows this kinf of list. A lot of people are quoting or paraphrasing Pt. 7, which is great, but it isn't agreed upon. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect as above. Wikipedia is not a game guide (and that is what this article is), but some content may be able to be salvaged. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge, but only essentially content, not the majority of it. Pagrashtak 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. There is no reason to have this much detail on earthworm jim. Stick to the main article, and focus on notable important aspects of it rather than every tiny detail of it. Randomran (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:ITSCRUFT. There are plenty of reasons to have detail on a notable game series and notable aspects of it. Researchers and journalists are potentially interested in how aspects of notable games developed and how these aspects added to the games' success. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be some traction on Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT#Scope_of_information point 3. That kind of specifically proscribes against this kind of list. but point 7 is just proposed, not enacted. Change mine to merge or neutral Protonk (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Some of the information is useful and important to the game's series. Gary King (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ample precedent. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is ample precedent to merge and redirect without deleting, but not really to just outright delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is precedent for both options. Let's not forget that WP:Not#Gameguide is a policy. The Earthworm Jim article is not long at all, and would not be harmed by having a list of playable items added to it. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into Earthworm Jim (series), cleaning up as we go. Both articles will benefit from being combined, as the series article is currently little more than a list without pulling out the key themes, differences and evolution of a successful entertainment franchise. That way, the series article becomes more of a sourced commentary of the subject with information being provided in-context, something that should be aimed for. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a preferrred way of handling this sort of material. This is what minor stuff should be merged to. DGG (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Earthworm_Jim_items&oldid=1137993088"