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


 * 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. I see no need to salt, though. --Core desat 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate water

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete vague listcruft. Anyone can manipulate water. So can an umbrella. Wryspy 01:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing but listcruft. Far too vague and inclusive, impossible to verify. My kidneys can manipulate water, for God's sake... Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but again, suggest move, as this too is misleading. Even experienced editors are misled by it :) Also, suggest someone strip it of all non-notable characters, and we'll see how it looks from there.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can write my name in the snow! Delete MarkBul 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps interesting if it covered non-fictional characters, but alas, is crap. Delete. Mystache 03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite some of the (amusing) comments above, the list clearly defines it's criterion as "...fictional characters with the paranormal or superhuman ability to create or manipulate water." That seems clear enough to satisfy WP:LIST demand for inclusion parameters. It probably still fails WP:N and WP:V, but I just thought I should clarify this point. -- B figura  (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... apparently it's late enough that my humor sensor isn't working. Apologies :-) -- B figura (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of notability for characters who can manipulate water Corpx 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the comment " Anyone can manipulate water." only makes clear the title needs improvement. The article needs sources yes, but the concept for inclusion is clearly explained in the article. ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fancruft. J I P  | Talk 10:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This can be turned into a category as it is now this list is too vague. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Magioladitis 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definitely a listcruft. Keb25 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Comical article. Total crap! RS1900 10:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Even taken at face value, contradictory and arbitrary criterias for inclusion in the list makes it useless as an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Eqdoktor 08:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because outstandingly organized table about notable topic that is both convenient and helpful for numerous readers. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh look, it's YELLOWBOX MAN who has the ability to tell everyone else what to do...Mandsford 23:47, 6 September 2007 (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.