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


 * 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, as the rough consensus indicates. –MuZemike 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per outcome of Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. Claritas § 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per correct outcome of the other AfD. Reyk  YO!  02:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a trivial intersection, no other deletion rationale given. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge notable characters to Weather control where a similar list has already popped up. Tavix | Talk  19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge in favor of Tavix's thought. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are issues with merging, in that the entire contents of the list are unsourced, and the whole "source" column seems to be original research. Claritas § 07:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure what Jclemens means by "Not a trivial intersection", but "no other deletion rationale given" is certainly not true, as WP:NOTDIR is given. WP:NOTDIR seems to be exactly right. Claritas's objection to merging seems to me a good one. If anyone thinks anything from this list can usefully be added to Weather control then they can be added individually. That can be done without wholesale merging from this list, and since this list contains nothing that needs preserving, such as sources to support such additions to the other list, there is no reason why adding to that list should be treated specifically as merging from this one. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I would also support either blanking the crufty popular culture list in Weather control or editing it into a concise section in encyclopedic prose.  Them From  Space  19:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that, it seems to be a WP:TRIVIA violation. I'll bring it up on the article's talk page. Claritas § 09:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to echo my comments made in Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants. My expertise is mostly in anime and manga, but I found many of the anime/manga lists to be extremely dubious throwing in water, ice, or wind manipulations into "weather". I have to wonder as to exactly what the encyclopedic purpose of this lists is other than providing a trivial cross-categorization between two loosely associated topics. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete most recent good practice is to delete lists like these. When editors disagree about what is trivial, we go to the sources. There are none. It's a made up topic for a list which is why it often descends into dubious entries on that list. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep improvable,  and a significant concept.    DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really a policy-based argument for keeping this. Claritas § 15:33, 6 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.