Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fullerenes in popular culture

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 Keep --JForget 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fullerenes in popular culture

Fullerenes in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This appears to be yet another case of "let's move the clutter elsewhere to help the main article". A list of every mention is just clutter and a trivia guide. Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be just a list of links to anyone and anything that mentions fullerenes. Nothing of an encyclopedic nature. -- MightyWarrior 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the sculpture pictured in the article simply appears to be a truncated icosahedron which the artist has preferred to call a "buckyball" rather than its mathematical name. Apart from the shape there is nothing to link this to the fullerene molecule! -- MightyWarrior 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, you can see from the edit history that many people have contributed and endorsed the article, so we have already many keep votes. The article highlights culturally relevant molecules, there are not that many (!) so it is worth getting to know them. Valuable information. The unencyclopedic argument is without merit V8rik 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs more cites. See NY Times article. Bearian 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Fullerenes. Yes, I know, that article is already pretty long, but this material is, I think, worth keeping, and it's hard to see how it can logically stand on its own. Tim Ross·^talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is not just a list (has a well put prose section) and contains multiple references. Plus, I feelstrongly that the article is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep large or small, this can logically stand on its own as a discussion of the popular awareness of a notable topic. DGG (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • note: debate deleted from above discussion, article is inegral part of nanotechnology and not a comic V8rik 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone said it was. however, it does contain the line Tagon's Toughs, the Mercenaries in the web comic Schlock Mercenary often use Fullerene Personal Combat Armour worn as regular clothes. Sorting it allows those of us interested in sorting to examine the data we are building and draw conclusions. What does unsorting achieve? Hiding T 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'd like to see a better article on this topic, but deleting this one is not the best way to hopefully get there. This article is not a directory, so the nom makes no sense. Moving content to a separate article is within reasonable editorial discretion. It can always be merged back or somewhere else at reasonable editorial discretion later. Dhaluza (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Fullerenes. Material is interesting and relevant to the main article. One way or the other, it's worth keeping -- it can either stand on its own, or be part of the wider topic. Why not let the editors most involved in this decide what's better? Turgidson (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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.