Deletion of Fictional applications of real materials

Comment: My intent was showing that each entry is referenced by the primary source (namely, the work of fiction in which each material is fictionally applied).  However, we prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia -- a source that cites the primary source and discusses the subject matter.  It's doubtful any of these have such significant real-world relevance that secondary sources will discuss the fictional applications.  This is simply |trivial
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

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: We don't keep articles around simply because they're |useful.  Beyond that, information about radioactivity and cancer should be in articles about radioactive materials, not in a list of fictional applications of real materials.  Even if we granted your utility argument your logic is broken --  someone who does not know that a property was fictional would not by default go looking for a list of fictional properties
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL)

Comment: How is a list of "primary sources" any different than any other ?  '''~a
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)