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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:02, 10 October 2007

Fictional chemical substances, A-M

Fictional chemical substances, A-M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fictional chemical substances, N-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fictional chemical substance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect)

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)[reply]
Delete all per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete all per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable and unsourced. Crazysuit 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep all, as much better organized than a category and after all encyclopedias help to organize information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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 "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. Steve block Talk 20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

What does this have to do with being censored? i ^said 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 *'''Keep''' The nominators reasoning that this is "[[WP:OR|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 [[WP:UNENCYC|unencyclopedic]] is a matter of opinion not supported by policy, and to those who find this "disgusting", sorry but [[WP:NOT#CENSORED|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. [[User:DHowell|DHowell]] 04:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 :What does this have to do with being censored? [[User:I|'''i''']]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:I|<font color="Black">said</font>]]</sup> 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. [[User:SolidPlaid|SolidPlaid]] 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)