Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical chirality in popular culture

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Chemical chirality in popular culture}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Chemical chirality in popular culture}})

Excessive pop culture trivia - original research, and I don't think that a highly niche list of a trait in chemistry in popular culture is encylopedic. If sources were found for the entries on the list, I don't think they would mention chemical chirality specifically. Waxworker (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Yet more trivia.TH1980 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge a couple of the stronger entries, Lewis Carroll and Arthur C. Clarke, to a new section: Chirality (chemistry)#In fiction. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as there are many entries of interest, but remove some trivial entries. At least add Dorothy L. Sayers to the couple mentioned above for merging. --Bduke (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, and modify as suggested by Bduke. There are clearly people interested in this article, to which I was directed only a few days ago after I referred to Lewis Carroll's example in a UseNet group. Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a completely unsourced list of trivia. Many of these example amount to nothing more than "the concept was mentioned in this book/episode". If someone wanted to expand the main Chirality (chemistry) article with sourced content of its use in fiction, that may be possible, but nothing from this article should be merged or kept as, again, it is completely devoid of reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - completely unsourced trivia. Wikipedia is not tvtropes.org, where this content would be right at home (and I would encourage anyone to copy it with attribution). There was a time when Wikipedia would host lists of whatever theme individual editors found in pop culture, but the standards for notability have increased since then. We actually need sources about the subject of "chemical chirality in popular culture" rather than derive a subject from synthesizing examples. Also oppose moving unsourced material into another article. It would be WP:OR to decide, in the total absence of sources, which entries are more important than others when including in the main article. If secondary sources can be found, I've no objection to adding it there (but would defer to editors of that page to decide whether such trivia should be included). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - A bunch of original research, no secondary sources demonstrate the notability of this topic in "popular culture". -Indy beetle (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Zero sources, and no indication of WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Do not recreate without reliable sources about the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.