Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional super metals


 * 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  Merge to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. As the nominator has pointed out, most (but not all) of the fictional metals on here are on the other list, which simply describes the items without making judgments about whether they are "super metals";  Concerns about sourcing and OR apply to the other list as well, where it appears that the community is addressing them. What, if anything, should be merged (the participants disagree on whether there is anything "worth merging") can be discussed at the talk page there. Mandsford 02:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional super metals

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This list is redundant to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, and the term "super metal" is far too broad in scope to allow this to be a useful list. It's original research to claim that x is a "super metal" without a source indicating so, and the list has sourcing issues. Claritas § 09:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Basic remake of the other article with. Maybe speedy delete per A10? Derild  49  21  ☼  15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A10 is only for recently made duplicates. Claritas § 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim and merge per nom. No need to have two lists, no need to have unsourced information, but note that per WP:NNC, sourcing that meets WP:V, including primary sourcing, is sufficient to keep an individual list entry. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary sources don't actually say that item x is a "super metal" in most cases. It's a matter of interpretation which is essentially unverifiable. Claritas § 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Inherently original research. Unsourced and probably unsourceable, and there is no usable content that can be merged anywhere. Reyk  YO!  07:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * merge aas suggested above, to form one better article.    DGG ( talk ) 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't merge. It is all original research. Primary sourcing should not be sufficient. It isn't in any other fields of the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per DGG, Jclemens, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:CHEAP. DGG's and Jclemens' comments seem common sense to me.  Many lists have been deleted or merged in the past; the ones that are merged tend to be sub-lists or more obscure.  Deleting such a list will eliminate its history and sourcing, but merger would save those. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm of the opinion that this is a perfectly valid page, and I see no reason to do anything to it really.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost completely unsourceable per WP:V, and is potentially infinite, since the list's criteria for inclusion are extraordinarily broad. Individual elements of the list are almost all WP:OR. — Chromancer  talk/cont 00:41, 13 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.