Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Cyclopia, 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SALAT||WP:SALAT||WP:ATD (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists)