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]
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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Earthworm_Jim_items
No tags for this post.