Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional toxins

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional toxins

List of fictional toxins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I rather feel we are on the far edge of listcruft here. These fictional toxins appear to have nothing encyclopedic in common with each other, coming as they do from different films, stories, television programmes et cetera, and so I conclude that this is a list of indiscriminate information. A1octopus (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a very well organized table, doesn't qualify as "indiscriminate", and I can't envision that the information could be merged into a different article. There should be more sourcing, and some context should be added, but the mysterious substance wreaking havoc is what mystery fans would call a MacGuffin, and it's a common plot element. Unlike a real poison (such as thallium, which was in the Agatha Christie novel The Pale Horse, a fictional poison doesn't inspire imitations. Wikipedia's lists of fictional weapons, aircraft, presidents, nations, diseases, etc. are popular and are usually a useful navigation tool for other articles. This doesn't really work as a category, the information isn't available elsewhere, and I see no reason to delete it. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I would feel more strongly that the article should be kept if there were external sourcing, but poisons, mutagens and toxins which play an important role in notable works of fiction seems not to be indiscriminate. Although the introductory remarks say that the substances are fictional, some of the descriptions are too "in-universe" and give the impression that the things actually exist. The source books, films, or animations should have articles or be notable enough that they are deserving of articles, to avoid stuffing the list with things in every amateur work, fanfiction, or random scifi story buried in Astounding Sci Fi 1928. There are doubtless literally tens of thousands of potential list members if every one mentioned in every work of published or broadcast or theatrical fiction were included. How many are given at least a passing mention in the Harry Potter series? Or would it be the sense that every such instance in a published work is eligible? Edison (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convert into category The list just needs to be sourced better. I had an afterthought. If the science fiction poison indeed is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then it could be part of a category which would capture the list automatically.  kgrr talk 17:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. Though not particularly badly written, sources are lacking to establish notability of the concept and the inclusion criterion is not clear, e.g. "basilisk venom" is not exclusive to J.K. Rowling, and, in terms of sources of toxins, it just appear to be some random collection of popular fiction universes or stories. Are the toxins really notable even within the fictional sources? Again, compare the basilisk venom in Harry Potter which at least plays an important role in at least two of the books, to toxins from expansive fictional universes (e.g. Batman, Star Wars) which might have at most a mention or relatively trivial role in one of many minor stories within the universe.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list of non-notable information. Dlabtot (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not indiscriminate, a great place to keep minor fictional elements that don't merit their own article. Has no problems that can't be dealt with by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how is it not indiscriminate? Where/when were all the Star Wars poisons/toxins listed mentioned in the movies? Or are they taken out of derivative works? Why isn't the poison that made Nikki and Paulo from Lost appear dead (then be buried alive) listed? Not a single fictional toxin from any Dungeons & Dragons novels listed, but tons of Marvel and DC stuff. Nothing but in-universe descriptions with zero source (except for the Homeland Security training one, though it is technically fictional, it's not from an actual work of fiction). Where do you draw the notability/inclusion-exclusion line?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That book is on the use of poison in fiction (that is, mostly poisons that exist in real life). There appears to be not that much on fictional poisons (there is one chapter on creating such a thing according to a reviewer who has not read it yet). Thus I doubt it lists any of the poisons in the article under AfD (searching for a few keywords yielded nothing).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are discussing the topic in general here, not particular entries. The source demonstrates the notability of the topic. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.
Comment - the point is that the book is not entirely about fictional toxins, as Colonel Warden claims but about poison in fiction with only one chapter on inventing fictional poisons (intended for authors), and thus is not necessarily sufficient to establish notability of the subject (particularly, as a list article). If it offered a catalog of fictional poisons, then it would be clear evidence for notability, but it is not the case. ETA: even if the topic is notable, the complete lack of source and clear inclusion/exclusion criteria make the list itself unsalvageable without rewriting from scratch. --137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, Kgrr has a point there. I still propose deletion of this page, but conversion to a category seems reasonable enough. A1octopus (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So few of these have articles (or even sub-sections within articles) that it's not a navigational list, meaning that the concept of fictional toxins has to be meaningful. I fail to see how multiple instances of "foo from the book/film/game foo turns the victim green and makes them foo their own kidneys" is anything other than a trivial intersection of otherwise totally unrelated fictions. "If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.". I would have no qualms in supporting a suitably referenced article on the subject of toxins in fiction which used noteworthy examples and was out-of-universe, but listing them willy-nilly in this fashion is forum-post fodder. Someoneanother 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list, and make a category also if wanted. There can and generally should be for all topics of this sort a list as well a a category, because a category can not indicate such useful browsing guides as the name of the fiction or the author, nor can it deal with the ones that are significant without necessarily being notable. significant plot elements in notable works may not be suitable for articles by themselves, but they can be suitable for inclusion in a list. Te present list is not indiscriminate -- it only includes those in notable works, which is a very sharp distinction, and I did not notice any of trivial significance in the work--if there are any, they can be removed by editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor components of fictional works. Not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good discussion with info from the works themselves, though it could use some cleanup and added citations from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (weak). I don't see this as an article that would appear in an encyclopedia, which IIRC is our basic guideline. It would be an interesting chapter in a reference book about Science Fiction (or other fictional works). Maybe that means its notable enough. I don't have a really good feel for this.David V Houston (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_toxins&oldid=1138011314"