Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (3rd 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

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

This article is basically long list of things that don't meet the general notability guideline. There are a few exceptions, e.g. adamant or kryptonite, which have their own articles; there are a few more which independently wouldn't meet the GNG but are appropriately covered in other articles (e.g. bazanium is covered in the article on Raise the Titanic!). However, this list page is a magnet for listing very marginal stuff that has probably never been commented on outside of the game/comic/film where it was invented. Because so few refs are provided it's also a hoax magnet. Basically, this page is a list of random, unsourced, unreferenced stuff, and looks set to remain so; it's had years to improve and hasn't, and it's time to get rid of it. The Land (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a good list. There is a source column, and nearly everyone of those sources links back to an article, making checking for hoaxes easy. It may be lengthy, but that is due to the all inclusive title. Besides, isn't it better to have one big article than a hundred or so stubs? --Auric (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nom is basically a laundry list of arguments not to make in deletion discussions. See WP:NOEFFORT, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. postdlf (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Auric and Postdlf, and a strong-keep result from the prior afd in October, including many good points; plus no negative change in situation since then (Just some cleanup/additions/references/links[1]). —Quiddity (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's any argument here which wasn't refuted in the last AfD 11 months ago, I'm simply not seeing it. While consensus can change, the simple solution is for the editor who objects to any specific item to either challenge it or source it. Yes, this is a list of otherwise non-notable items, because non-notable items get merged appropriately if notability is their only problem. I am pretty confident that the class of fictional materials or elements has received appropriate RS coverage as a topic, regardless of whether such has been added to the article or not. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd lean towards keep because the concept of fictional materials has been around long enough. That said, the way the table is organized creates some odd connections, such as implying that Adamantium is the same material between, say, the Marvel Universe and the Final Fantasy series (one may have inspired the other, of course), same with Unobtainium. Further, I think there needs to be some type of inclusion metric, otherwise the list is potentially boundless. One possible metric would be how important the fictional material is to the plot of the source work; something like Adamantium (within Marvel) or Unobtainium (within Avatar) are central plot elements; Xentronium, on the other hand, appears to be simply flavor text. Otherwise, as the nom suggests, this can easily be a dumping grounds for any cool sounding scientific term. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 19 September 2012 (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.