Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials

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. I realise that a straight count of "votes" would not yield the usual supermajority, the delete arguments are significantly more convincing and the keeps are more along the lines of "it's OK", "it's harmless", or "it just needs to be cleaned up". More or less indiscriminate too. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional applications of real materials

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|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) that attempts to catalogue every fictional application of a real materal. Merge any relevant information into the pertinent articles, but we shouldn't be a repository for comic book/sci-fi trivia.

Note - the above description is inaccurate, I believe. This is not for *any* use in fiction, which would indeed be unmanageable. It is only uses where a material has some different property than it does in real life. LouScheffer 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is a list of "primary sources" any different than any other WP:LIST? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - My intent was showing that each entry is referenced by the primary source (namely, the work of fiction in which each material is fictionally applied). However, we prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia -- a source that cites the primary source and discusses the subject matter. It's doubtful any of these have such significant real-world relevance that secondary sources will discuss the fictional applications. This is simply trivial. /Blaxthos 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment We use primary sources for plot, andb y common sense we can use them for the occurence of obvious objects. In any case, most or these can be sourced from secondary sources--"dilithium" for example is discussed in the books written about Star Trek. So it's sourceable, which is the criterion--not sourced. DGG (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see this as no different than listing fictional characters, which is very common and accepted in Wikipedia. Also, no one is putting in their own fictional uses, it's all used in other fiction and hence not original research. On the third hand, I find the 'Science origin' series pretty useless, since there is no connection at all to real properties. (i.e How could experimenting with Argon make characters more resistant to damage, even in principle?). Most of the others have *some* connection to the real material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think this could be improved by (a) restricting it to fiction in which the normal laws of physics otherwise apply, and perhaps (b) noting the connection with the real element.

I modified the article to see what this might look like. Feel free to change/comment/revert... LouScheffer 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader of Wikipedia, I personally find it interesting since it ties together elements (pun intended) that are just a small part of each individual story, but show a common thread across all sorts of fiction. LouScheffer 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides consisting of trivia, the article tries to have far too broad of a scope for a list. Eric119 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the scope is too big. After a year or so, there are still a manageable number of entries. If you look at the description, it is not any use in fiction of a real material. It's only when the *use* is fictional, so it's not something the real material can be used for. Can you think of any more examples, offhand? If not, the list is probably fairly close to it's natural size. LouScheffer 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - imagine what this list would look like if someone decided to add every time a doctor administered oxygen on a medical show or every movie with a building made out of brick. Otto4711 13:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the list is not uses in fiction, it's fictional uses. Since oxygen is used in ERs, and bricks in buildings, they should not be included. LouScheffer 02:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto, lol. Weak delete, reason below. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are not confusing "uses in fiction" with "fictional uses"?. I think Otto's examples are "uses in fiction", but they are not "fictional uses", since they are normally used for these purposes. LouScheffer 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I thought about this again and came up with the following delete-worthy reason: This topic has a major trivia-like quality to it, and there is no (sourced) article accompanying this list that would demonstrate the topic's notability. An alternative is merging this list into all the pages of real elements, but what you'd get is those ugly trivia-like sections (if they don't already exist - ~~see Neutronium#Neutronium in fiction~~ (accidental bad example, this seems to be a made-up material to begin with, but the point remains)). Fact is: Fiction is made up per definition, and what most likely happened is the creator thought up an element with fictional properties and named it like a real element. That's IMHO non-notable "coincidence", and since there are hundreds of fictional universes, this produces crufty lists of non-notable occurences that tell the reader nothing except for "hey, a real element named ### was used in show/comic ####." But I see there are more lists like this (Fictional chemical substances) that suffer the same problem and should IMO be deleted just the same in their current unsourced state. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In a Wikipedia that is populated by articles about comic book characters, it's good to see an article that shows that exposing yourself to radioactivity will give you cancer rather than superpowers. TV, movies and comic books, which Wikipedians are so fond of, are woefully ignorant of chemistry and physics. You can have your articles about the various forms of kryptonite. Let us have an intelligent "you can't actually do that" article to balance out the kid's room in Wikipedia. Mandsford 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We don't keep articles around simply because they're useful. Beyond that, information about radioactivity and cancer should be in articles about radioactive materials, not in a list of fictional applications of real materials. Even if we granted your utility argument your logic is broken -- someone who does not know that a property was fictional would not by default go looking for a list of fictional properties. /Blaxthos 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but their friends who have a tighter grasp of reality might... I disagree with the description of this as "comic book/sci fi trivia". This isn't in the same league as, say, "The Justice League". Mandsford 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is a beautifully organized article. All articles can become unwieldly somehow, so just keep it as restrained as possible and continue to add references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cosmetic appearance of an article is completely irrelevant to its encyclopedic merit. Otto4711 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We may prefer secondary sources, but there is no objection to primary ones.--Bedivere 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an original research article, but clearly an article who's boundaries are indefinable. If someone used a plastic snake to stop someone bleeding, I guess that would and could be used in this article. Rgds, --Trident13 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, but the article can (and should be, IMO) improved by requiring the association with a real use. I'd say improve it, not delete it. LouScheffer 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any subject can be made to look ridiculous by suitable imaginary examples. Examining the actual list, it is limited to a relatively small number of elements and chemical compounds. The use of various constructed objects in fiction is covered elsewhere. DGG (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it needs more work adding primary and secondary sources but this like this are a good resource and while bloat and trivia needs to be policed that goes for everything here. (Emperor 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Keep one more time, you misunderstand. Notability is for the article as a whole. It is the concept that the article represents that Notability must be established for. Notability does not determine the content of an article. The wikipedia manual of style on fiction, clearly states that articles about fiction should be based as much as possible on Primary sources.--Marhawkman 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not exactly. Read WP:FICTION above. Thanks. /Blaxthos 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. It says "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".", but that is for no purpose other than establishing notability. For writing an article on the subject see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). There we find: "The term primary information describes information that can only be taken from primary sources, i.e. the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g. another episode of the same series). Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source." I hope that helps.--Marhawkman 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is a particular case of science in science fiction, which has a large number of reputable secondary sources - books, college courses, and so on. (Try "science in science fiction" in google to see many of these.) None of these sources has all the examples here (I'd assume) but the topic would fit into many of them. At least some of them discuss some of the items here, so I think that makes the *topic* notable, if not the individual entries. LouScheffer 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the notability rules do not directly determine the content of an article. Thus individual "entries" in an article do not need to be notable.--Marhawkman 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Post hoc ergo propter hoc -- LouScheffer correctly states that science in science fiction is both notable and easily referenced. However, this does not mean that a list of fictional applications of real materials is also notable. I encourage you guys to build a science in science fiction article. However, WP:FICTION dictates what is notable. From what I can gather from your argument, you're saying that since the topic of science in science fiction is notable, any article relating to science in science fiction is also notable. Notability is not inhereted, and beyond that this is only a list of indeterminible scope and lacking in reliable sources, as defined by both WP:RS and WP:FICTION. /Blaxthos 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But science in science fiction is way too broad of a topic - there are whole books on the topic. So we already have Planets in science fiction, Kinetic energy weapons in science fiction, Time travel in science fiction, and at least 11 other articles of this type. (just do a search on "in science fiction" from the Wikipedia main page.) Since this page is basically materials in science fiction then I think either we should keep it, or that all these other pages are bogus, too. Or you could argue that they all belong in one article "science in science fiction", but then it would be too long and disjointed, IMHO. LouScheffer 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      / exactly. Sci-fi movies and books are generally considered reliable sources. Thus any often recurring thematic element would fit the notability requirements.--Marhawkman 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Incorrect. Any recurring thematic element that has ""significant coverage in reliable sources"" as defined in WP:FICTION (meaning "real-world" content) would fit the notability requirements, not a list of every recurring thematic element. It's clearly stated so in WP:FICTION. /Blaxthos 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But this theme does re-occur in secondary sources. Advanced materials, Nanotechnology in the Age of Posthuman Engineering: Science Fiction as Science by Milburne, etc. LouScheffer 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then write an article about it, using the information contained in the sources! However, that doesn't bestow notability to a list of all fictional applications of real materials, most of which are not mentioned in the source! Remember, this is a list, not an article. /Blaxthos 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is the standard for a list different?--Marhawkman 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems useful and harmless. It certainly is not original research, since there are endless sources for both the real and fictional properties of each material. -- Lilwik 06:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially infinite list. I should think this would be the obvious reason for deletion. This would be rather like List of fictional characters. Strong Delete —Verrai 20:54, 11 October 2007 (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.