Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity


 * 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 per consensus. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

See WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article falls under "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons (real or fictional)." This particular collection seems unencyclopedic. See for a very similar past deletion discussion. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they contain essentially the same type of content:
 * Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * comment These arent really directory entries. The lists seem to have clear criteria. I dont think they are great lists but I just can't see how this is against Lists_%28stand-alone_lists%29. -- neon white user page talk 04:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * clarification Each of these lists does have a clear, well-defined criterium for inclusion of entries: ability to manipulate elemental force X. I'm not convinced that only one such criterium warrants a list on WP. "List of electric-type Pokemon" I'd be fine with; "List of Mortal Kombat characters by ability" is marginally acceptable to me.  These lists seem excessively broad. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * i would agree but i'm not sure which policy or guideline suggests they are not valid. -- neon white user page talk 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep All These lists seem to meet with the criteria.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - If this stays, we should have "characters who like chocolate" as well. Listcruft, and completely pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be wrong with List of fictional characters who like candy? Dumbledore and a few Discworld characters immediately come to mind.  Celarnor Talk to me  14:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep All - If the lists need to be fixed or cleaned up, then we should focus on that, instead of just deleting them all because there are a few entries we feel that dont belong. --Piemanmoo (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Nomination is CRUFTCRUFT.  Perfectly in line with LIST, and in my opinion, an ideal topic for one.  Celarnor Talk to me  09:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all Mostly blue links in nice format. Good for navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: Just pointing out there were once similar categories for this that were brought up here: Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 7  « ₣M₣ »  13:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Personally, I think that many of the reasons given for removing those categories apply equally well to these articles. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all: Are discriminate, with precisely defined criteria for inclusion, and otherwise seems to fulfil WP:LIST. Given the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be useful, I can see this being handy for someone who wishes to study how notable characters with these abilities have been depicted by their creators. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above. These lists are discriminate, with clear definitions of what should go into them, per WP:LIST. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore all Four essentially uninformative and uninteresting lists cut from the same pattern. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT says that "boring", "waste of space" and "useless" are not reasons for deletion.  Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:LIST. The nominator seems to have misinterpreted WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Pixelface (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all It would be ideal to have specific reference links, but the documentation is in the main articles from which this is compiled. The arguements above, that we should have a category rather than a list, and vice versa, could be used to remove all lists, & shouldbe disregarded..
 * Keep. Cross-referencing of existing content is good for navigation purposes.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete. These all have the shared problem of, for me, being a bit too broad (as defined by WP:LIST). There are also issues raised in the CfD linked to above that could be seen as POV/verifiability problems (e.g, what constititues "manipulation", whose standard do we use, what of characters who have the ability for only a brief time, etc.  See the close of that CfD for a good summary).  Those couple little things (and borderline at that), however, are the only real issues with these articles.  Admittedly, they don't tickle my fancy, but that is not a reason for deletion.  Pastordavid (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (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.