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


 * 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) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology

 * – ( 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. It also contains original research, which violates WP:NOR - the source column seems to be based on primary research into the texts. Note that Technology manipulation in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. I don't really know what "technology manipulation" means in this or any context.....presumably if I change the OS on my laptop that's technology manipulation ? Claritas § 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete ALL, per nom and previous AFDs Nakon  19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment None of these lists is very good, and even the most vigorous inclusionist wouldn't be able to say much other than "plenty of room for improvement".  There was a real lack of vision in deciding what to include in a sortable table-- I can kind of figure out that if it's in Marvel Comics, then it's probably in a comic book, for instance-- and there's not much revealed about anyone on here-- this one's magic, that one's inherent, that one's inherent, that one's inherent.  I won't mind if some technology is manipulated to delete this one. Mandsford 21:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Original synthesis for the most part, and consensus seems to be that these kids of articles are not appropriate. Reyk  YO!  23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:59, 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)


 * Delete As with the others of this ilk, it is purely WP:OR and random cross-categorizations that violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. It isn't part of an encyclopedic topic, and what is considered a "manipulation of technology"? The crossing of fictional character X with ability Y is a trivial, non-encycopedic bit of opinion that generally results in an overly broad as such a list is not realistically finite in number, truly definable, nor are they appropriate topic for a list. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk  ~ contribs ) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Just as the others this is pure OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless you can add me to the list. I'm using my powers right now. Otherwise delete as WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great big resounding keep from me. No original research that I can see but that's besides the point. A good dollop of OR is just what Wikipedia could do with at the moment. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of the stupidest !votes I've ever seen, but I'm not blanking it because it's more silly than disruptive. Claritas § 21:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes sir, and you are a deletionist but I will be sober in the morning. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't drink and wiki. Claritas § 22:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I wouldn't but somehow I don't think I'll have changed my mind by tomorrow, even with the hangover. I can only hope for your sake that you have. ;) --86.132.227.35 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you should state that there is no original research as I just removed a bunch of entries of cyborgs, androids, computer programs, and the like along with individuals who manipulated technology using other technology. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the beauty of a list article. Some entries will be removed, some will be added. There will always be greater levels of perfection for which to strive which is pretty much the case with all articles. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Same goes for the encyclopedia as a whole. Some articles will be added, rubbish ones like this will be removed. Reyk  YO!  01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbishness is a point of view. Frankly I fail to see what makes this article so very "rubbish". There many characters in fiction who can manipulate technology. This seems like a noble way of categorising them. Lists are significantly less unruly than categories. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It violates two core policies (WP:V an WP:NOR) as well as the policy of what Wikipedia is not. "noble way of categorising them" is exactly what WP:NOT is there to prevent. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:Wikipedia is not paper so see what is in place to neutralise WP:DIR. In any case, there are far too many policies around here. Some of them need to go. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, of which this list does not. And I see no way to "neutralise" the WP:NOT as the list fundamentally violates that policy. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles shouldn't need a reason to be included but there should be a very good reason for certain articles to be excluded, something more substantial than the destructive urges of certain editors. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, having this sort of nonsense in Wikipedia damages the reputation of the site as an encyclopaedia. Claritas § 16:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh don't be so ordinary. There's nothing nonsensical about having a List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology. If were discussing a List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves then obviously I'd vote for deletion. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - An encyclopedia is not a repository for fanboy minutiae. None of this has the slightest bit of real-world impact or notability. (per the mass AfD at (Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability) Tarc (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It may not have real-world impact but nor for that matter does James Bond. It has artistict impact. But frankly I don't know why I'm even defending it, you've obviously made up your minds that you're going to delete the article so why not just haul it to the guillotine and put it out of its misery once and for all. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is precisely what an encyclopedia is. There's always other venues for this sort of thing, check out wikia.com, I'm sure someone has started a superhero wiki by now. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what an encyclopedia is? And what is that? A gas chamber for human knowledge and imagination? I thought encyclopedias were supposed to bring a depth and wealth of interesting information to the general public. Which is why Wikia is vastly superior to Wikipedia. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Superior? Please, the Wikia is a vast fancruft playground...think of it like the alt.* hierarchy of the Usenet days.  That's why this sort of thing is more suitable there rather than here.  "depth and wealth of interesting information", sure, but that doesn't mean every scrap of everything that exists. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, superior. If a vast fancruft playground is the only way to achieve a compendium of everything that exists (ergo: ultimate encyclopedia) then perhaps that's what Wikipedia needs to be. You notice that Wikia doesn't bother with those silly, piddling little sources that Wikipedia is so cripplingly dependant on. And you'd be hardpressed to find any nonsense policies like NOR there either. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc, I think this IP is simply trolling. Notice that he/she has not making any counter-arguments to begin with and just poking other editors just to get a response. That's why I stop responding to it a while back. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds a bit like . Tarc (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not trolling and I have made a good many counter-arguments, most of which have simply been brushed aside. No, I am not poking people for a response, if people find my beliefs controversial then that's their problem. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the ongoing discussions and consensus at Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability.  Snotty Wong   express 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody was a good man. I'm sad to see that the Wiki-Mafia have made him disappear for challenging the infallible will of the Deletionists. Wikipedia could use more like him. But hey, who cares about creating when you can destroy? --88.106.175.78 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not actually a comic book fan but it is a vehicle for businesses that probably account for income, in the billions of dollars a year, so it is popular with many fans. That is not the issue at hand. The issue, seeking consensus, is if the article should be deleted or not and reasoning. An article being considered for deletion, stating reasons, should be addressed and views against deletion should present reasoning and counter any accusations. Verbiage that makes no specific reasoning will not be considered one way or the other. I am "not" a "deletion" -ist and don't even like the supposed word. If an article does not provide material per Wikipedia then it is a candidate for deletion. I have read the above entries and some instances simply are not actual. The article, silly or not, or encyclopedic or not, will not actually "damage" Wikipedia. If left standing a person will probably not stop using Wikipedia because of the contents of this article. That is my POV but the arguments presented that I have read, and lack of actual constructive counter arguments, does lead to a justifiable consensus. I have not looked into the listed Wikipedia standards violations, but have to consider other similar deleted articles.

I can not, thinking as broadly (and even liberally) as possible, having 4 children and 8 grandchildren, imagine what good the article serves. I can not, again thinking openly, imagine that even a comic book fan would seek out this particular information. If it was that important it should be included in the relevant articles. With all said, and certainly not biased one way or the other, I have to vote delete with sound reasoning. Otr500 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a list and the topics are all bluelinks, so souring really isn't a problem. I can see the OR argument, but I'm curious if anyone has any specific cases they disagree with, otherwise it seems pretty odd to object to something as OR when everyone agrees on each case. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Claritas the definition of the term in this context is "Ability to manipulate technology. Manifested as a special form of electrical/telekinetic manipulation, a special form of "morphing" which allows physical interaction with machines, or even a psychic ability that allows for mental interface with computer data." I'm unclear why you felt it wasn't defined in this context. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the chances to EVER be able to verify that definition for any entry from a third party source? WP:LIST WP:V Active Banana (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well a similar definition (which we can't use word-for-word of course) can be found at, or which is shorter but also defines the term.  So 100% chance I guess?  If the differences between those RSes and this definition offend, feel free to rewrite.  Hobit (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd imagine that some written work on superheroes must have chapters on this sort of material actually - things like superhero powers are a pretty basic point of discussion. I would have voted keep in the other two. And transwiki'ing and fragmenting of information I suspect is the death knell of quality editing so. I suspect this is going to be deleted though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete completely original research, no way to fix it that i can think of anyway. 71.16.41.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I need some input on the topic of "Lists". I read the remarks from Hobit and later was exploring AfD's and found this:


 * Articles for deletion/List of white nationalist organizations.
 * Among reasons to keep was, "Keep Templates, lists and categories are all legitimate navigational aids, even though they tend to get out of synch.", and if this is true then what would be the basis for AfD? I don't even like that list, nor do I see an actual need for this one, but if the grounds are legitimate, as a navigational aid, then we are barking up a proverbial AfD tree? Information request; I would like some unbiased reasoning concerning this please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason it's convincing in that case is because someone said "it duplicates a template" which isn't really a reason to delete. It's not really relevant to this AFD which is for totally different reasons. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:12, 20 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.