Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional chemical substances, A-M

From 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 Delete. As per my closure over here, this doesn't have the usual level of consensus. The keep arguments comprise mainly WP:WAX, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOTINHERITED, whereas the deletes are more persuasive. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional chemical substances, A-M

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  Note to closing admin

Several AfDs regarding the same basic subjects/premises are open concurrently, and largely involve the same editors (and same viewpoints). It may be beneficial to consider the following AFDs at the same time:

Entirely original research (from primary sources only) that attempts to catalogue every fictional chemical substance used in fiction. The list is hopelessly large in scope, and is nothing more than comicruft. Merge any relevant information into the parent articles, but we shouldn't be a repository for comic book/sci-fi trivia. See a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials.

  • Delete all as nominator. /Blaxthos 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all I found these surprisingly interesting (who knew X-Men and Warhammer had shared elements?) but not really an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Save it on your own disk-space before it vanishes, but I agree, it isn't encylopedic. It's easy to create a fictional chemical substance, and fictional substances are more interesting than boring stuff like, say, "potassium chloride". New ones are introduced in comic books every month. In effect, fictional substances are just inanimate characters to help tell a story. Mandsford 14:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Non-notable and unsourced. Crazysuit 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Kill with fire Lists like these are just disgusting. Nothing encyclopedic about them. Disuss ones that are important on the article with which they are associated, and delete the lists. </cut & paste> i said 04:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, catgories and subcategories can capture the ones that are notable enough to have their own articles. SolidPlaid 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, as much better organized than a category and after all encyclopedias help to organize information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep why is it not encyclopedic. Plot elements in general are, if they are used in important works. (And I incorporate by reference all the arguments in the above AfD, which apply here as well)DGG (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic, of value and argument for deletion amounts to I don't like it. Best solution is to ignore it, not delete it. The bit about this article being "hopelessly large in scope" bamboozles me. Thank the lucky stars we've so far ignored that argument as it pertains to an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Ironic that were we to follow the argument that things which are hopelessly large in scope should be deleted, there would be nowhere to make that argument. Wikipedia disappears in a puff of logic. Hiding Talk 20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominators reasoning that this is "original research (from primary sources only)" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the actual policy, which says: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources [including primary sources] within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Saying that this is unencyclopedic is a matter of opinion not supported by policy, and to those who find this "disgusting", sorry but Wikipedia is not censored. Finally, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes explains why the possibility of a category does not preclude the validity of a list. DHowell 04:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What does this have to do with being censored? i said 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with original research is that it is haphazard. Look at the list; it includes fictional elements as well as substances, and has entries from books, comic books, TV shows, movies and games. One book, The Ogre Downstairs, has several entries, but the book itself is barely notable. In my opinion, this list is failing peer review. SolidPlaid 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I hadn't realised the deadline for finished articles had been set yet. Oh wait, what's that, it hasn't? So how do we know peer review has failed, if there is no time constraint on the reviewing? Didn't we use to have a {{sofixit}}? Hiding Talk 13:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It could be "fixed" by userfying the list and creating individual pages at leisure. SolidPlaid 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We have a lot of entries on fictional chemical substances and having a list to collect them all together is preferable to creating a category. It may be that some kind of clean-up, trimming, splitting, editing is needed but the concept itself seems solid. (Emperor 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep all. This is so much better than categorizing these things even if the lists need improvement. Doczilla 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment to all the keeps: How can you argue that any of this meets our notability guideline when WP:FICTION clearly states: ...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".? It seems that everyone conveniently overlooks this basic requirement for notability. /Blaxthos 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep once again, you misunderstand. Notability is for the article as a whole. It is the concept of Fictional Chemicals that Notability must be established for. Notability does not determine the content of an article.--Marhawkman 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Established by what, exactly? I say we go with what our rules say. Do I need to quote it again? "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that "describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content"". Can you please show us where notability has been established, by our requirements? /Blaxthos 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The article is about an abstract concept. Any source other than the focus of the article is either secondary or tertiary. As an abstract concept, that is pretty much everything. We can't actually use the concept itself as a source.--Marhawkman 21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Try as I may, I can't comprehend what you're saying. I honestly can't say if the deficiency is mine or yours. /Blaxthos 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
          • the articles are about the concept of fictional chemicals. whether the individual chemicals are notable is irrelevent.--Marhawkman 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Then you should write an article about the concept of fictional materials as it relates to the real-world, per our guidelines. These are just fluffy lists -- grouping a whole lot of non-notable fictional materials together in a list doesn't make it any more notable. /Blaxthos 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Been thinking about that. It'd probably have a longer header at the top, but it'd still be a list article.--Marhawkman 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I encourage you to, so long as its content is restricted to verifiable information that meets with substantial coverage in reliable sources as defined by the appropriate guideline. I think either here or at the other related AfD you've already found some sources that would meet with our needs. /Blaxthos 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks like we need secondary sources about fictional chemicals to establish notability of the concept here. So here are some:
  1. Chemistry and Science Fiction (American Chemical Society Publication) by Jack H. Stocker[1]
  2. A paper in The International Journal for The Philosophy of Chemistry: "Chemistry and Power in Recent American Fiction" by Philip Ball. Full text: [2]
-- Lilwik 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but retroactively finding quasi-related "sources" from which the article is not sourced doesn't establish notability. As I've said elsewhere, writing an article about fictional chemical substances using the verifiable information contained in the sources is a great idea, but googling "fictional chemical substances" and then trying to use the results to establish notability on a list is not. They don't establish notability on what we have here, which is just a collection of chemical substances made up in fiction. /Blaxthos 07:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • They seem to establish notability on the surface. They are scholarly work on just exactly this subject. You can claim that this appearance is deceptive all you want, but unless you supply some sort of reasons to support it, you can't convince anyone. -- Lilwik 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • And the fact that it was so easy to find only suggests that there is far more than this to be found, if one were to look harder than mere googling. -- Lilwik 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the list articles. Create a category Fictional chemical substances, and put the individual articles (Adamantium, Thiotimoline, etc.) in it. That's what the category system is for.   Then, if anyone finds anything encyclopedic to say about the concept of fictional chemical substances, that article can be re-created. Unfortunately, I don't see anything to say about such substances as a group, beyond "People come up with fictional substances." --Quuxplusone 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ein problem. That'd acheive the same thing as deleting the article completly. Most of the things mentioned in the article are there because they don't have pages of their own. Zwei problem. There is already far more than that in the article.--Marhawkman 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And you've hit the nail on the head... the rest of them are not notable (per WP:N and WP:FICTION). /Blaxthos 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This certainly is not original research, since sources are given for everything. The subject is also notable and the elements of a list are not required to be individually notable. Even so, the list seems rather long and it might be better if some of the more trivial entries were trimmed. -- Lilwik 07:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Notability is not inherited. /Blaxthos 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • What's your point? Show me where you've gotten this weird idea that everything in a list article must be individually notable. I certainly can't find one. the policy on Lists specifically says otherwise.--Marhawkman 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • From the official policy what we are not: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". See WP:NOT#IINFO (specifically number 2). /Blaxthos 00:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Follow up - Lists are supposed to be meta-indexes for finding related articles, not a dumping ground for otherwise non-notable trivia (a backdoor around WP:N). Few (if any) of the items in this list have their own articles (nor should they). From WP:LIST: "Stand-alone lists, including "lists of links", are articles consisting of a lead section followed by a list (or a list of lists). These lists may contain links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places, or a timeline of events.". Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • And if you'd read WP:SAL you'd have noticed "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles:". --Marhawkman 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Style guidelines do not trump official policies (or notability guidelines). /Blaxthos 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • And Notability is only considered when determining whether the TOPIC of an article is appropriate. As far as I can tell there is no guideline or policy that makes List articles any different in this regard.--Marhawkman 01:11, 12 October 2007 (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.