Deletion of Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

Comment: Sorry guys, but the contents of a list must themselves be notable to warrant inclusion (as defined by  - more than just "published in fiction"), otherwise it is just an #IINFO|indiscriminant collection of information (something '''|policy''' prohibits
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: fun articles''" do not necessarily "''make wikipedia better''".  Being |useful is not in-and-of itself a reason to keep an article, and I certainly don't see how an article that simply lists fictional substances in comic books and sci-fi could ever be truely useful (or appropriate for this project).  Regarding your assumption that it's prudent to |ignore all rules, I really don't think this article comes anywhere close to the threshold necessary to ignore , , , and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:IAR||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:N||WP:FICTION)

Comment: I don't see anything about these articles that makes them necessarily original research. There may be some original research somewhere in the articles, but that can be removed without deleting the entire articles. I think that we should improve these articles to raise them to the standards of Wikipedia because they are fun articles that make Wikipedia better, and they are useful articles to people researching such topics. Since Wikipedia is better with these articles than without these articles, it seems that  would also apply if there were any rule saying these articles should be deleted, which is far from clear
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: we should not lower our standards for the ''type of sources'' we find acceptable for fiction...  We should raise our standards for inclusion to those explicitly stated in the |appropriate guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION)

Comment: How can you argue that any of this meets our |notability guideline when  clearly states:  '''...fictional concepts are deemed |notable if they have received substantial coverage in |reliable ''secondary'' sources.  For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".'''?  It seems that everyone conveniently overlooks this basic requirement for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FICTION||WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: As is clear from the policy wording pasted above, making descriptive claims about primary sources is not |original research. Saying that this is |unencyclopedic is a matter of opinion not supported by policy, and to those who find this "disgusting", sorry but #CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored. Finally, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes explains why the possibility of a category does not preclude the validity of a list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:UNENCYC||WP:NOT)

Comment: poorly sourced original research. I don't quite understand some of the logic being used here. It seems to be that since it does not meet the standrds for  and , we should not enforce those standards, we should lower them until the articles we like fit them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION||WP:RS)