Deletion of List of fictional toxins

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: per . 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.--Special:Contributions/137.122.49.102|137.122.49.102
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)