Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional medicines and drugs (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Sandstein 13:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional medicines and drugs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced listcruft with no clear criteria for inclusion. The overwhelming majority of list items are very obscure, or not even actual medicines. Should be deleted per WP:TNT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the nominator said: this fails WP:INUNIVERSE too. Bondegezou (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TNT and WP:LISTCRUFT are neither policies nor guidelines and so are just vexatious opinion. The page in question is an obvious counterpart to List of fictional diseases and, like that, passes WP:LISTN as there is plenty of coverage of medicine and drugs in fiction. Here's a selection: Andrew D. (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can't accuse every creator of a deletion discussion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT without actual evidence to back it up. I don't think you can prove that I legitimately don't like the idea of an article about diseases, because that would be ridiculous. I never said anything to that effect, elsewhere or in the deletion discussion itself. Secondly, all those references prove is that the subject is notable. That doesn't change the fact that this article is a poor one and should be deleted. Perhaps it will encourage the creation of an actual well referenced article, such as Medicine in fiction. Poorly written/maintained articles should not be kept simply because of future potential that may or may not be realized (though I will put my chips on "not" given that it has not been improved since its last AfD in 2010)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is our explicit policy that we should keep poorly written/maintained articles about notable topics. WP:TNT is not policy and there is good evidence that such a perfectionist approach doesn't work. Nupedia had the idea that articles should be well-written before they were published and it was an utter failure. Wikipedia's approach was far more successful and enduring. Andrew D. (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- badly sourced listcruft with no prospect of being improved to meet our verifiability and notaility inclusion requirements. Reyk _YO! 15:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:TNT Snowycats (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced listcruft. I do not agree with Andrew D's reasoning that we should keep poorly constructed articles as they tend to remain poorly constructed and unencyclopedic well after the AfD closes. It ought to be removed and started over as per WP:TNT or userfied if someone is willing to take ownership of it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we should also consider List of comic book drugs again which was nominated a few months ago with no consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.