Deletion of List of fictional worms (3rd nomination)

Comment: 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.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_worms&action=historysubmit&diff=368468968&oldid=355333477  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: This, like most all "list of fictional animals" articles, is of a topic far too broad (per ) 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: per  and . And '''strongly protest''' Colonel Warden's attempt to characterize this nomination as disruptive
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: 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 : in any case I'd like to remind that  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT||WP:SALAT||WP:ATD)

Comment: per , , .  Another unreferenced list which contains many non-notable entries.  The lead of this article is terrible and does not follow 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:OR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:WAF)

Comment: per  (as Themfromspace points out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: per  and .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)