Deletion of Fictional chemical substances, A-M

Comment: The nominators reasoning that this is "|original research (from primary sources only)" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the actual policy, which says: "''Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources including primary sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.''" 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: 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)