Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 05:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfD was closed as a no consensus. Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the list topic of this article has not been a group or set by independent reliable sources, so it does not meet the general notability guideline. Also, none of the sources provided by the article provides an actual list with all items. The content itself is created with original research by synthesis and it consists of plot-only descriptions of a fictional works. As such and since Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, I do not think that it is suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and, therefore, it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lists need to meet the general notability guideline. No sources to WP:verify notability of this class of things. Nearly any science fiction story, and nearly any video game will have dozens of fictional materials in it, so as to render this list completely indiscriminate. Delete the article, what little can be verified should be covered at the respective articles about the movies/games/etc. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This list is useful for mentioning elements that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. But the list is way too long, it needs to be pruned of elements that were only mentioned in passing rather than having real in-story notability. JIP | Talk 05:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The list should either be pruned to those items that either have their own articles or have third-party sourcing establishing that they are notable in some manner (ideally both), or deleted and rebuilt from the ground up. In any event, clear inclusion criteria should be established and adhered to if the article is not deleted. Doniago (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the claim above that this fails notability guidelines is off the mark here. There are multiple entries in the list that have their own articles (e.g., Adamantium, Kryptonite, Liquid electricity, Mithril, Unobtanium...), which makes this at the very least an index of article topics. That the subjects of the listed articles are fictional elements, materials, etc., is a defining, shared characteristic, so a list grouping them by that characteristic is an appropriate article index and poses no notability problem. And many of the fictional materials that may not merit standalones are discussed in the articles on their respective works or media franchises, and I think at a minimum those are also appropriate to link here. Regardless, the extent to which this should list non-standalone subjects is purely a matter for cleanup and normal editing and discussion. This list could additionally function as a list of lists (e.g., List of Star Trek materials, Category:Dune substances), providing further utility for browsing and indexing.
As for whether this list comprises OR, I don't see more than an unsupported opinion on that asserted above. The nom's generic string of acronyms doesn't amount to a particularized argument about this list nor are his interpretations consistent with consensus regarding such lists. The title is a bit of an unwieldy conglomerate, but it seems to me to be an attempt at being inclusive and comprehensive, to avoid splitting hairs as to whether a fictional substance is an element or alloy, metal or mineral, etc. The parent category is simply titled Category:Fictional materials, which may or may not be too vague, and which has Category:Mythological substances as a subcategory. In sum, I see some issues for further development, but none for deletion. postdlf (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a sensible way of indexing and listing notable topics such as dilithium, ice nine and tachyons. If one looks, it isn't hard to find discussion of this out there such as Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society. Warden (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From that article (full text available here): "No discussion of materials in the movies would be complete without some discussion of the Star Trek universe. Star Trek, in its many incarnations (six television series, ten theatrical features, countless books), has inspired nearly two generations to pursue careers in science and technology...While the best materials technology in Star Trek is reserved for the television series (e.g., the legendary dilithium crystals), one notable exception occurs in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home...[E]very engineer’s hero, Scotty, makes a trade with a materials supplier by giving the formula for transparent aluminum." I think that paragraph really hits home why we shouldn't turn our noses up at pop culture subjects. postdlf (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable. Over 60 of the entries have individual wikipedia articles, and that's only the ones that have blue wikilinks. Numerous reliable sources are available for many these fictional materials. This is a nice way of listing everything together. Sourcing and individual notability of entries are editing cleanup issues, not the purpose of AfD. Those arguments and the original research concern may apply to some of the entries but certainly not all or most. As such the rational for deleting the entire article is invalid. I suggest closing the AfD and starting a cleanup section on the article talk page instead to discuss entries that may not belong. Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was initially inclined to suggest weak keep per JIP, but - how does one prune or filter without expending more editorial energy on this article than would be prudent? Have the list or don't. There are notable fictional elements etc., so it's a keep for mine. Colon el Tom 10:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly worth keeping, but maybe not in its present form. Lynch 7 13:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is certainly notable, and the large number of blue links shows how widespread it is in Wikipedia. Having a list simply of the blue links is in itself interesting and useful; the additional information clearly may need citations. Deleting the whole thing simply sounds unhelpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The subject is notable, and it's clear from the span of the list that there should be a central collection of the things, for which a list is ideal. The list might need pruning to remove those fictional elements that are not notable, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only with editorial pruning back to entries which are notable enough for their own articles (even if the article is not written yet). If that cannot be achieved than I would argue for deletion in a future AFD, on the grounds that it is an unmaintainable list. Inline references are needed to show secondary coverage of the entry, beyond appearing in the original fiction. The list is indiscriminate at present. The article should be severely pruned if it is kept, since it has many nonnotable entries and some entries not even part of the stated membership list. Dilithium crystals and Kryptonite, yes. "Thaum" as a "unit of magical strength? "Swivel" as a "time travel process?" Not even close to being a possible member of "fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles." Maybe they belong in some other list. A cleanup might well remove "crapton:" a "joke particle" found in Washington DC. "Hull material" is a general description, and not a unique fictional substance. It is unencyclopedic to make such a list a grabbag of every fictional particle or substance which every appeared in any form, which was mentioned in some book, game or cartoon and never gained any notice otherwise. Edison (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some entries link to their own articles, some have significant coverage or are significant in the notable series they are in, and thus should be listed here. Not everything on a list needs its own reference of course, so anything that is in question should be discussed on the talk page. Be in bad form to someone to fail to delete an article to go through and wipe out most of it, as happens far too often. Dream Focus 22:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG OR purge unreferenced entries in the list. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think past consensus is that a list with several notable entires, lacking a POV, and legitimate use has been kept. The last AfD closed with no consensus, but I think one is forming in the affirmative. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Challenges to individual items, in the normal editing process, might be appropriate. htom (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, there are relatively few reasons for wanting a list of this sort, but some people will need it, and it would be as good as impossible to find most of these items without this list. In summation: it should be kept because it accomplishes a task that a Wikipedia user researching a related topic would find impossible. - Lord Vargonius (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (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.