Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per outcome of Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants and Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. Much of this list may violate WP:OR, if the "source" column is based on primary research on the texts. Note that Darkness manipulation in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. Claritas § 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Claritas has it right, Wikipedia is not a directory nor a cross-categorizer. TN X Man  19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Banish into the darkness, per previous reasoning. Though in Wikipedia's case it's more of a banishment into redness... --erachima talk 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments - Even though my finger prints are all over this, and a number the like lists, I'm really ambivalent to it being retained. Most of these lists are a result of old CfDs the nutshell of which was 1) that the categories required more information to include articles that wound up on the category page and 2) the categories were creating clutter in a number of places. And this does give rise to the concern that this will push the need/desire to correlate these characters in fiction back into categories. Beyond that... lists of examples can be, and often are encyclopedic in nature. These lists tend to push the edge of that since it's an attempt to "not offend by omission" and avoid edit warring of the examples that are included. As for OR, that's a bit of a double edged sword here. Most examples are going to be based on the primary source, there is little way around that, but it should be something explicitly stated in the primary source, not something the reader interprets. - J Greb (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as another party in said CfDs (and also the guy who did a good chunk of the table coding for these lists if I recall correctly), they were preserved as lists primarily as a political move, and under the agreement that they would be revisited if it did not appear there was actually be the potential for an encyclopedic article on the subject. I'm a fan of lists, and agree that they should be given a certain level of lenience when it comes to notability, but the inability to establish the notability of the topic of the list is a pretty damning strike against them. --erachima talk 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is really that it is a cross-categorization of "Fictional characters" and "People who can manipulate darkness or shadow", and this seems to be trivial. The interpretation of "manipulation of darkness and shadow" can be extremely broad - it could extend to switching on/off a light. Claritas § 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And that was part of the reason the categories went to CfD - the result of which was to listify the content not outright deletion. Granted thought that was a few years back and consensus can change.
 * As for "cross-categorization"... that really can wind up a semantics argument. Any list of examples of a given non-standard ability (super strength, controlling plants, controlling light, telepathy, etc) in fiction is going to cross series, publishers, genre, and/or media. - J Greb (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have a problem with the topic, and I'm not sure it's really cross-categorization -- are there real people who can manipulate darkness or shadow? Maybe the guy who takes uses the shadow of his hands to "make a bunny", and this is about as fascinating.  As with other lists of this type, it's original synthesis and badly done, kind of killing any interest that might have been generated by the title.  Mandsford 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- much of the list is original synthesis, and consensus at other AfDs seems to be that this kind of article is inappropriate. Reyk  YO!  23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nom. This and other such lists are WP:OR and cross-categorizations that violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA as they really have no potential for being an encyclopedic coverage of any topic. The crossing of fictional character X ability to manipulate darkess/shadows is trivial, overly broad as such a list is neither finite nor truly definable, and not an appropriate topic for a list. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk  ~ contribs ) 01:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all - It is a bit of all, previous discussions, OR, NOCONTENT, synthesis, and so forth. Frankly, these lists are pretty useless in their current form. On top of that they hardly contain 1% of the fictional subjects with these abilities, so they might become somewhat unmanageable once they are near-complete. --Pgallert (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no potential in this pure OR list - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Most, if not all, of those lists are just repositories of loosely associated topics based on a trivial cross-categorizations. They are also horrendous train wrecks of original research and many of the entries on those lists don't even have stand-alone articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (this is a repeat of another similar AFD which has the same kind of topic)... this topic just fundamentally disagrees with Wikipedia and it's not a question of fixing it. Unencyclopedic cross-categorization as per WP:NOTDIR. There is nowhere except Wikipedia where this is covered which makes this WP:OR. I'm not trying to insult anyone's work when I even say this should be a snowball delete and I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere that this could be saved by a transwiki. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2010 (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.