Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiation poisoning in fiction

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 ☢. east.718 at 05:45, November 30, 2007

[edit] Radiation poisoning in fiction

Radiation poisoning in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced trivia clutter. Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a fan's guide to every little mention. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - maybe a shorter section could be transcluded onto the radiation poisoning page. Rudget.talk 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. No criteria for inclusion, but more importantly, no explanation of why radiation poisonings in fiction are important or notable. Just seems to be an attempt to collect trivially important information and is therefore non-notable. eaolson (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete where will the listcruft end. RMHED (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable listcruft. Axl (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable topic and because the two comments above the comment above mine violate “I don’t like it”. I feel strongly that these types of articles are encyclopedic and only need to be improved via “so fix it” and that they satisfy List by having reliable references and organization. Also, keep per this argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I do like "Radiation poisoning in fiction". My favourite is Spider-Man. Axl (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Spider-Man" isn't even on the list. It's an outrage! Axl (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to a failure to utilize secondary sources for the list of entries -- we don't indiscriminately list all the details of some aspect of the world around us especially in fiction, we explore the real-world context of the aspect. This article fails to accomplish this. There should instead be a focus on providing prose for the topic, such as secondary sources explaining the accuracy or inaccuracy of radiation poisoning that is portrayed in fiction (if such sources exist). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An article as described by Erik above might be worthwhile, but as it stands this is pure listcruft. CKarnstein (talk) 15:46, 29 November 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.