Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

Add links
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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles[edit]

  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:

Yet more lists of fictional substances. Completely contrived from primary sources, these articles are nothing more than original research (and at least one admits as much in the first paragraph -- "Grouping is done by what seems most likely."). We are an encyclopedia, not a place to list everything made up in the comic book/sci-fi universe. Non-notable, trivial comicruft.

  • Delete all as nominator. /Blaxthos 11:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I can't think of a better example of a) original research b) listcruft c) fancruft d) a violation of WP:IINFO. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletium all In this case, it's a trivia trove; author worked hard, save it to your hard drive, etc., but there's nothing significant about making up a name for a plot device. This could well be called a list of made up words ending in "-ium": Acoustium, Administratium, etc.. down to Zuunium, for "elements" that (a) don't exist in reality and (b) have a "magical power" or a superlative quality of lightweight, strength, etc. At some point, everyone discovers the periodic table and finds that each element has a different number of protons and that the higher up you go, the less stable you are. I guess it would ruin the "fun" if a writer tried to explain that (blank)ium has "187 protons" or what-not. Mandsford 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above STORMTRACKER 94 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/modify All Notability is satisfied by the major impact of the concept fictional elements(etc..) are used for. As plot devices in Sci-Fi and fantasy works such things are often the main driving point to stories. This deletion would remove articles about the subject in entirety. While specific instances of the use of such things may be trivial, the trivial uses don't have their own articles and are instead noted in a larger article about the concept as a whole. Per WP:notability "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." The articles are about the TOPICS of fictional substances. Those topics are Notable. "Explodium" may not be notable enough for an article of it's own, but it is worth mentioning in an article on fictional elements.--Marhawkman 00:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And notability is currently not established by reliable thirdparty sources (WP:N, WP:RS), making all entries and therefore the whole lists trivial. Even if notability was established, I'd argue that wikipedia doesn't need to list every possible fictional substance to get the point across; a handful would be completely sufficient. – sgeureka t•c 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • RS is a Guideline not a policy. It is completely inapplicable in most situations concerning works of fiction. Why? third party sources are unofficial and thus (Generally) not considered Reliable. Thus for FICTION we must use first party sources.--Marhawkman 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Instead of lowering our standards and "bend" the rules, why not just follow the guidelines we have for fiction: Topics within a fictional work (characters, places, items, concepts, etc.) are covered in the article on that work of fiction. The only exception that could possibly apply would be #1: If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long. However, if they were notable in their own right, reliable sources would already exist (and we wouldn't need to change our standards just for fiction). /Blaxthos 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to be clear, these articles actually do have reliable sources. Primary sources are reliable, especially in the case of fiction. If these articles have a weakness in sources, that weakness is probably due to a shortage of secondary sources to prove notability. The reliability of the sources is not in doubt. -- Lilwik 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was a Message board I'd say something like "STFU NOOB". But since this is Wikipedia, I'll post his from Wikipedia:No original research:

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Policy shortcut: WP:PSTS Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing 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. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. Sources may be divided into three categories:

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about.. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; United Nations Security Council resolutions; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that sum up other secondary sources and primary sources. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources. Secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No original research" requires that wikipedia users stick to the sources."

In the case of Judge Dredd, the source is the movie and/or comic books. but those are considered PRIMARY souces. As stated above, a lack of reliable TERTIARY sources does not make something non-notable.--Marhawkman 02:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to give your comment the dignity of a response, except to point you to WP:FICTION and the notability guidelines. Regarding "STFU NOOB" and pasting an entire guideline into an AFD discussion, I'm letting WP:ANI handle it. /Blaxthos 15:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my opinion above. (I don't think there will be hard feelings. Most contributers were drive-by IPs anyway.)– sgeureka t•c 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Marhawkman makes a good point. First, this is based on fiction, so it's unlikely you'd find the same type of sources you'd find for, say, cats or nuclear fusion. Second, though individual entries might seem overly trivial, for many this is all the information they have here, and for some can surve as a starting point for articles of their own. Third, I certainly don't like the tone of some of the people here. No one needs to be quoted the difference between a primary and secondary source, and CERTAINLY no one needs to be told "STFU NOOB", even if qualitifed as something you WOULD say. So, I'm for keeping this article as is, 100%. Kevin 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - we should not lower our standards for the type of sources we find acceptable for fiction... We should raise our standards for inclusion to those explicitly stated in the appropriate guideline. /Blaxthos 16:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill with fire Lists like these are just disgusting. Nothing encyclopedic about them. Discuss ones that are important on the article with which they are associated, and delete the lists. i said 04:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I was a better man than to comment on making such a post immediately after a scatching comment about inappropriate tones. But I'm not. We're at least nominally supposed to have a productive discussion of the situation and our options, and spewing hatred for the articles - which, mind, some contributors have worked hard to build - isn't conductive. Please try to maintain some level of respect. --Kizor 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know some users have worked hard to build cruft articles like these; it's why articles like this are resoundingly salient. And I do dislike articles like these. People seem to think every article on fictional minutiae is encyclopedic. My comment may not have been particularly flowery, but it was hardly "spewing hatred". i said 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well are you averse to all Wikipedia lists in general, or just this one? Do you also hate Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction? What about List of battles (alphabetical)? What about List of fictional animals (other)? My point is your argument doesn't sound like one against this one in particular, but more a tirade against lists in Wikipedia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvn8907 (talk • contribs)
Well, yes.Most articles entitled List of X are bad in my book. As for the specific examples you gave, I'd only begrudgingly keep the list of battles one, because it would be difficult to navigate a category. As a side note, that motif of harmful sensation looks like original research, I don't even think it's a legitimate term. But lists like this, basically List of (Fictional minutiae), should go. This one included. i said 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything about these articles that makes them necessarily original research. There may be some original research somewhere in the articles, but that can be removed without deleting the entire articles. I think that we should improve these articles to raise them to the standards of Wikipedia because they are fun articles that make Wikipedia better, and they are useful articles to people researching such topics. Since Wikipedia is better with these articles than without these articles, it seems that WP:IAR would also apply if there were any rule saying these articles should be deleted, which is far from clear. -- Lilwik 07:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "fun articles" do not necessarily "make wikipedia better". Being useful is not in-and-of itself a reason to keep an article, and I certainly don't see how an article that simply lists fictional substances in comic books and sci-fi could ever be truely useful (or appropriate for this project). Regarding your assumption that it's prudent to ignore all rules, I really don't think this article comes anywhere close to the threshold necessary to ignore WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:FICTION. /Blaxthos 15:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I must disagree The article DOES meet the standards of those four article you posted Blaxthos.

From Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The topic is "Fictional elements". Does it qualify? I think it does. The concept itself is individually notable.

"No Original Research" DOES NOT preclude using Primary sources. Original research is creating your own information. The articles in question are derived from a variety of sources that are independantly verifiable and thus do not fall under that category of original research.

Last I checked, deriving an article from comic books was sufficient to satisfy "reliable sources".--Marhawkman 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poorly sourced original research. I don't quite understand some of the logic being used here. It seems to be that since it does not meet the standrds for WP:FICTION and WP:RS, we should not enforce those standards, we should lower them until the articles we like fit them? Mr.Z-man 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Exactly. Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely idiotic and should be ignored at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC) — Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Account has been indefinitely blocked.[reply]

  • Delete all, categories and subcategories can capture the ones that are notable enough to have their own articles. SolidPlaid 22:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. Very notable. Also not original research, it's all sourced. Primary sources are the best types of sources for fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC) — Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Account has been indefinitely blocked.[reply]

    • Comment - Given that your contribution history is almost entirely vandalism moves, and the fact that you say "Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely idiotic and should be ignored at all costs", I don't think that your reasoning has much merit. /Blaxthos 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Resolution - Account has been indefinitely blocked. /Blaxthos 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a ad hominem fallacy to argue that a person's reasoning is flawed because of personal flaws. We should try to avoid personal attacks. And I don't think we are allowed to strike out the comments of other people. -- Lilwik 04:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dude, it's a vandalism account that has been indefinitely blocked, not an argument about personal flaws. There was no personal attack involved. I'm striking (but not removing) because the account is not a valid editor and has been banned from the project. /Blaxthos 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am as surprised as you are that a vandalism account has been used for anything remotely serious, but it seems to have happened. Vandalism accounts are blocked to prevent vandalism, not to prevent meaningful contributions to discussions. Just because this person has done vandalism does not mean that the contributions to this discussion should be ignored, and I certainly don't think it gives you the right to edit another person's comment, even just to strike it. Can you provide a link to the place that says you are allowed to do that? -- Lilwik 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you really arguing that we should consider this account's opinion as meaningful, in the best interests of the project, and legitimate? Especially considering the fact that (1) it's already been indefinitely removed from the project, (2) the account is a few days old, and (3) it has never provided any meaningful content to the project? I stand by my actions, and I believe that by repeatedly standing up for such incivility because it coincides with your !vote you are doing us all (including yourself) a disservice. /Blaxthos 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saying "Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely idiotic and should be ignored at all costs." is not a productive contribution to this discussion. Not to mention all the inaccuracies in their other statement. Just because an article has sources does not mean it can't be OR. Primary sources are not the best source for anything here except perhaps plot summaries. Mr.Z-man 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear, it would not matter to me who you were striking out. You don't have the right to strike out anyone here, whether they agree with me or not, and ad hominem arguments are never useful. Notice how M.Z-man argues against the statements rather than the person and how that is different from what you have been doing. The only incivility I see here is one ridiculous attack on the notability rules, and several extreme attacks on an editor, including personal attacks and going so far as to repeatedly vandalize his or her comments. I won't get into an edit war over the strike-outs, but I hope someone else will help fix this. -- Lilwik 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop feeding the trolls. It's a vandalism account, not a real editor. Regarding the "ridiculous attack on the notability rules"... how does that work exactly? From WP:FICTION:

...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".

— WP:FICTION
Now, are we "attacking" the notability rules, or are we enforcing them? WP:FICTION explicitly states that topics are only notable when secondary sources cover "real-world content", as defined above. None of these have any sort of secondary sourcing because they're simply not notable (by our own rules!). Hope this helps clear the air. /Blaxthos 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was Wutizevrybudylookingat? who was attacking the notability rules. -- Lilwik 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't need a secondary source for every entry in the list. We don't need a secondary source for even one of them. All that is needed for notability in the case of a list is that the list itself is about a notable subject, and I think that is clear for most or all of these lists, even if they currently lack good secondary sources to prove it. I'm sure that the required secondary sources are available somewhere, and that is where our efforts should be directed, rather than this Afd. -- Lilwik 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lilwik is quite right. This is why I c/ped that section of the rules on sources. Some editors seem to think you cannot use primary sources in articles at all. That is wrong. you must use other sources to establish notability, but those are not always neccesary when writing an article. The main thing to remember with list articles is that it is the article as a whole that you must establish notability for. The individual items do not require the same notability, unless they have their own articles. Is "adminstratium" or "explodium" individually notable? Absolutely not. But that is why they don't have articles of their own. Is the concept of fictional elements individually notable? Well, there have been (a rough estimate) at least 100 works of fiction that featured one or more fictional elements as a key part of the plot. That more than satisfies the notability requirements.--Marhawkman 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is highly notable content. We probably could and should have individual articles on some of these, but there should be no problem sourcing they occur in the works listed. The work itself is usable for plot, and by common sense also in for the other textual contents of the book or movie or whatever. DGG (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 "contrived" foxes me. How can anything edited by numerous people over two years be planned? Best conspiracy theory yet. Hiding Talk 20:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These pages are just lists of information easily obtainable throughout the rest of wikipedia. For instance, if I wanted to search "Phazon", I wouldn't go to the List of Fictional Toxins page, instead I would go to the Metroid Prime page. Furthermore, alone, the lists bear no encyclopedic content. Once again, all content on the pages is taken or already stated in each element's respective primary page. It is unnecessary to have these lists, and so, they should be deleted. 24.15.53.225 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, if you were looking for something other than the content of these lists you would look somewhere else in Wikipedia, but that is true of every article. What would you do if you were looking for an overview of fictional materials, or searching for a fictional material with certain properties? If you don't know the name of the material or the work of fiction it is from, then you want one of these lists. -- Lilwik 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all As is clear from the policy wording pasted above, making descriptive claims about primary sources is not original research. 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 04:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all following DHowell. (Emperor 16:38, 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]
      • It's not clear that no such secondary sources exist, and this topic seems inherently notable since it is so widespread in science fiction and fantasy fiction. That guideline is only offering one way in which something can be recognized as notable; we can also decide that it is notable for other reasons. We can also choose to keep these lists because they are useful tools for accessing the content of Wikipedia. -- Lilwik 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Inherently notable? Do you have any policies or guidelines (besides WP:IAR) that support your assertion that we should ignore both WP:N and WP:FICTION? /Blaxthos 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you suggesting that we ignore IAR? Have you looked around for sources about fictional chemicals? How about Chemistry and Science Fiction (American Chemical Society Publication) by Jack H. Stocker[1]. I don't have a copy of the book itself, but I think its content is pretty clear from that webpage. -- Lilwik 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am suggesting that we hold ourselves to the standards the project has explicitly given us for notability in fiction, reliable sources, and verifiability. I am suggesting we show some maturity and not immediately jump to ignoring all the rules when the rules don't fit with what we like. /Blaxthos 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maturity also means not trying to be rules lawyers, and IAR is specifically designed to prevent that. But if that book isn't enough to convince you, there is more. I never imagined that finding this stuff would be so easy! Have you heard of The International Journal for The Philosophy of Chemistry? You can read the full text of an interesting paper here: [2] It's about the public image of chemistry, as seen through works of fiction. -- Lilwik 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the sources listed have anything to do with the indiscriminate list we now have. Retroactively trying to find quasi-related books (which by-and-large are not peer-reviewed, reliable sources) to establish notability isn't going to cut it. You're welcome to get some sources, and then use said sources to write an article about the real-world impact of fictional materials -- that would be a perfect article that would meet WP:N and WP:RS. A big hodgepodge list of every made-up substance in every comic book in print or online is neither encyclopedic nor a productive use of our time -- we're not in the business of plot summaries, or lists of plot devices. /Blaxthos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And things like Kryptonite are notable - you don't have to keep proving notability each time it is mentioned. (Emperor 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
        • Absolutely. There should be articles (that are properly sourced) for items that are truely notable. The list, however, fails both WP:NOT and WP:FICTION. /Blaxthos 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. The Article in question DOES fulfill the requirements of WP:Notability and WP: Reliable Sources. The article is about a vague concept, thus anything that uses the concept would be considered a secondary source. The list could use some fact checking, but it exists to illustrate the concept. the sheer size of the list should give you an idea as to the "realworld impact" that the concept has. --Marhawkman 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's a very creative interpretation of how things work. /Blaxthos 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? It's an article about an abstract concept. As far as I know, the rules about sources would only consider the concept itself as a primary source.--Marhawkman 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good. That's why we require secondary sources that discusses the real-world implications of the concept. A far far cry from these lists. /Blaxthos 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there something wrong with the secondary sources you've been shown? There's no point in demanding secondary sources if you intend to ignore them when they are given to you. Notability has been proven. -- Lilwik 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See this diff. /Blaxthos 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was hoping you might offer something more convincing if prompted. Whether you personally like the sources or not isn't a big issue for me. They show that fictional chemicals are notable enough as a concept to have papers written about them, and that's good enough for WP:N and WP:FICTION, and that is all that is required for this list. -- Lilwik 01:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Erm... the article does have sources. It lists those as part of the article itself. :/ It would be better if they were properly documented in a section of the article, but as is they are there. NOTE: "x appeared in y" fulfills the guidlines of providing sources.--Marhawkman 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it does not have reliable sources, per WP:FICTION. Reliable sources are secondary sources that deal with real-world information. /Blaxthos 05:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • once again you've posted an objection based on a misunderstood guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) does NOT require an article to be written using secondary sources. It only requires them to establish notability. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) articles about fiction should use Reliable Primary sources as a basis for the article. Also a "WP:reliable source" IS NOT necessarily a secondary source.--Marhawkman 06:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid creating new articles on fictional topics that lack substantial real-world content (and ideally an out-of-universe perspective) from the onset. Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to such sources; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors.

— WP:FICTION

Notice the word prove. Please show me where there is any acceptable source (as defined in WP:FICTION) for 99% of the information contained in this list. Please keep in mind this is a list, not an article, and so the content is what establishes notability. /Blaxthos 07:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking for and what you have quoted do not match. The quote just says that the article needs to have some significant connection to the real world, which we've already shown through secondary sources. Your expectation of a secondary source for everything in the list is unreasonable and it is not in any guideline. -- Lilwik 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that. WP:fiction doesn't cover the content of articles. The article is composed of peices of information related to other articles. These peices of information do not actually have articles of their own in most cases. Per WP:SAL it is perfectly acceptable to include items that cannot be expected to ever have an article about them. Also stand alone lists are wikipedia articles and subject to the same requirements. This means that it is the TOPIC of the list that must fulfill notability requirements.--Marhawkman 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ideally the pages should be lists of notable fictional things, not of all found fictional things, rather as List of eponymous laws tries to constrain itself to eponyms with articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Sorry guys, but the contents of a list must themselves be notable to warrant inclusion (as defined by WP:FICTION - more than just "published in fiction"), otherwise it is just an indiscriminant collection of information (something policy prohibits). /Blaxthos 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep saying that. But you've never shown any reason for your assertation. WP:FICTION does not govern the content of articles, not even list articles.--Marhawkman 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I thought I had been clear. See WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT in general (note that this is an official policy). I also encourage you to see the administrator's comments when (properly) closing the related AFD and deleting the article. /Blaxthos 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • from WP:SAL "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles:". This article falls into that category.--Marhawkman 01:04, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_elements,_materials,_isotopes_and_atomic_particles&oldid=1142651258"