Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional medicines and drugs


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional medicines and drugs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable WP:listcruft. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this classic example of list-creep, pending someone supplying an argument that suggests that this is actually a notable topic for a list. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an Omegendorph of a list! "The good stuff comes from Stygia and should be chewed slowly. Does not affect Austrian accents." Woss? I want some too. Then delete. Curiously these kids never read Umberto Eco or Borjes or dare I mention Rablais - each of these can easily double this list. East of Borschov 12:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The list needs to be pared back, and drugs that don't have citations or are not notable should be removed. Who would it hurt if the list is kept, there's some interesting content in there. Wlmg (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you look at the footnotes, none of the fictional drugs has a citation by a reliable source to establish notability. Thus the proposed cleanup amounts to blanking the article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Exactly how reliable a source is required for a fictional drug like Pylene-50? We're not talking about a BLP, it's pop culture fiction for pete's sake, cut the article some slack.Wlmg (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - unencyclopedic cross-categorization, unclear inclusion criterion, no real citation by reliable sources to establish notability of the concept (only very tangential footnotes, with the rare reliable source having nothing to do with the subject of the article). "To be added" section? What the heck is that? BTW, List of fictional toxins with a similar subject somehow survived two AfDs and has no references what so ever.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where else should this information go, if not in a list? We can't use a category, because some of these substances are only notable in the context of a work, not individually. bd2412  T 15:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this information doesn't have to be on Wikipedia in the first place.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- Being sourced entirely to editors' interpretations of the various primary sources, this list is inherently prone to original research. If you chop the words "List of" off the front of the article title, do you get a topic that could stand on its own two feet in terms of verifiability and notability? No. So a list of these things is even less appropriate. Reyk  YO!  19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This was previously AfDed as part of Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (2007), which closed as "no consensus". – sgeureka t•c 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, that AfD was for the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles article.....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Four lists were part of that AfD, and "List of fictional medicines and drugs" was the third one. – sgeureka t•c 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, completely missed that, sorry :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep with no objections to cleanup per the List of fictional swords treatment. Not indiscriminate, not unverifiable, etc. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. To quote the IP above, "unencyclopedic cross-categorization, unclear inclusion criterion, no real citation by reliable sources to establish notability of the concept (only very tangential footnotes, with the rare reliable source having nothing to do with the subject of the article)."  Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why don't we just delete every list of poorly sourced fictional anythings like this:List of fictional computers. In absence of a wikipedia policy on pop cultural lists then it's going to be an endless game of whack of mole. I repeat Keep. Wlmg (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- you seem to be saying that we should loosen our inclusion threshold almost to the point of nonexistence when it comes to articles on fictional topics. May I ask why? In my opinion, the real world is much more important than any fictional one so if anything we should be more stringent when it comes to fiction. Reyk  YO!  23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Judging by the preponderance of fictional lists the inclusion threshold is already near nonexistent. Though I would agree the real world is more important, tell that to the peeps who spend their whole lives in Farmville. This is all getting to be too much for me, Hal the fictional computer is telling me to take a "stress pill" and add that to list of fictional medicines if it's not already there.Wlmg (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep important elements of /nb  fiction are appropriate for a list. Considering the arguments in some recent AfDs, a few people think that no list of fictional elements can possibly be encyclopedic. All such lists can be sourced quite trivially--one finds the place in the fiction where they are discussed.    DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Indulgent original research.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: In order for this list to be an "unencyclopedic cross-characterization", the topic must not have been dealt with by reliable sources at all. Yet we find this not to be the case at all.  Look at some Google Scholar discussions of Soma, most of which are unfortunately behind paywalls. Ditto some discussions of melange.  The fact is that most entries in the tables have bluelinks to the works in which these drugs are mentioned demonstrates that the list is not indiscriminate: the inclusion criteria limit it to drugs discussed in notable works. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - some fictional drugs and medicines are major elements of the works they are part of, and as such have been covered in academic literature, that is not under dispute. The issue is whether the list is worthy of an article and whether the inclusion criterion is appropriate. I wouldn't be opposed to a complete rewrite as in List of fictional swords, but first there would have to be demonstrably enough notable entries to make a list necessary, and a clearcut inclusion criterion. Otherwise it is just an indiscriminate list of trivial entries that no one bothers to cleanup or make verifiable. Just like List of fictional toxins, or list of fictional cats.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.