Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with telekinesis


 * 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 no consensus. Some like the idea of this list, some don't.  Complaints about the inclusion criteria are important, but then again, they can be edited. Mango juice talk 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional characters with telekinesis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy delete - it's an indiscriminate list, exactly what Wikipedia is not per policy. Also, List of fictional characters who can heal and List of fictional characters who can manipulate ice or cold were deleted for basically the same reasons. I propose that the pages listed here are appropriately categorized before this AFD ends. Remember that we have a Category:Anime and manga characters with telekinesis, all that is needed now is Category:Marvel Comics characters with telekinesis, Category:DC Comics characters with telekinesis, and the main Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis. Does everyone agree? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Caveat As pointed out before, the list exists because the cats were thrown out with a CfD. It should be noted that the Anime cat is, at best, a recreation. Just pointing this out since we may be going into a cycle of "Cat bad, make List. No, List bad, make Cat. No..." where the material should just go. - J Greb 03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I was unaware of the previous AfD, and would have argued against its deletion then too. (Not that we need concern ourselves with that as a "precedent", since consensus can change, after all.) Calling this "listcruft", or "an indiscriminate collection of information" is wholly incorrect. This in no way compares to the number of spoons at Buckingham Palace, or the number of blonde models who wear perfume. In my experience in most XfD discussions involving media-related information (whether it involves comics, television, film, or whatever), the cry of "listcruft" is essentially IDONTLIKEIT. Such information is, of course, more than just allowed on Wikipedia, it's welcome. There are taskforces, and full-WikiProjects. And the topic "Superpowers" is not non-notable. It's useful to research. There are a myriad of books/articles/etc about such characters and their superhuman abilities. Anyone interested might wish to check out: WikiProject Comics/useful pages, and several other such pages at the WikiProject. Incidentally, the current concensus at CfD is that features of fictional characters should in many cases not be categories, but instead should be listified. One of the strengths of a list is to show interrelationships and comparisons between topics (per WP:CLS). - jc37 08:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Inclusion criterion is clear. A character either does or does not have telekinesis/psychokinesis. This list is better than a category. Wryspy 07:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is interesting to see repeated themes across many different styles of fiction. Jamestaylor 11:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (for now) as this is neither listcruft or indiscriminate (following jc37) and I also want to avoid the category/list yo-yoing described by J Greb (as these arose because the decision on the CfDs was to make them lists). However, this doesn't mean we eventually want to keep this and the others currently nominated (or the dozenish similar lists) but I don't want to have to vote on them singularly. What we really need to do is discuss the whole area (a discussion has started here) and reach a consensus on whether we want the lot and whether we want it as a list or a category or neither. I find myself feeling pretty neutral about the whole issue but it needs to be sorted out in a broader discussion rather than picking them off piecemeal with no broad consensus on whether these are good ideas or not (which will mean we will keep coming back to this every now and again). (Emperor 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Interest based lists with short info beyond anything a cat listing could achieve are basically useful for the reader. Keep or merge into something like "List of fictional characters by special ability". —AldeBaer 13:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, please take a look at this AfD and also other similar lists (I found List of fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields, List of fictional characters who can manipulate water, List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind, List of fictional characters who can manipulate time, List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather, List of fictional characters who can manipulate sound, List of fictional characters who can warp reality, List of fictional characters who can generate and manipulate radiation). There is the valid concern of how to decide on notability of a particular special ability (or "superpower"). Also, I hereby demand a List for fictional characters who are exceptionally good at math (e.g. Malcolm, Leaven). Therefore I'll go with tentative merge into a single list. In case the lists are kept seperately, a navigation template may be a good idea. —AldeBaer 13:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already List of comic book superpowers, such a list might compliment this (although, of course, another solution would be to merge all lists with that one but keep the examples trimmed down to a couple of key ones - as things currently stand) but wouldn't it be a big entry and end up being split into the lists again. I agree that as they stand they don't offer much beyond what a cat would do except these can be policed and rogue additions weeded out (which is why the CfDs for these things ended as a listify). However, as I said on the Comics Project, I notice Superspeed redirects to the relevant list and wonder if it would be possible to create an interesting and informative lead and have the list as examples? (Emperor 14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
 * I agree (if that is what you propose) that it'd be a good idea to merge each list into an existing article on the respective superpower. Where such an article does not yet exist, the list article could be moved to the name of the superpower and be made into an article. Btw: These should really have been filed as a multiple article AfD. —AldeBaer 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this is getting a little silly ;)
 * Anyway if you look at some of the entries Telekinesis I think what you'd find is that the editors of such solid entries would probably object quite strongly to jamming a big list in there (probably quite rightly). The bottom line is we can't just delete the lists and make them into cats (as we previously deleted the cats and made them into lists) so we need a better and longer lasting solution (which I think needs discussing in one place until we can work out a solution) and I'd favour one of 4 solutions:
 * Leave them be
 * Delete the lot and salt the earth on the lists and categories
 * Turn all the lists into redirects to the relevant section of List of comic book superpowers
 * Flesh out/rework/move the entries until they have a better lead and the list is more a list of examples (however, that is getting around to a point where we might as well go with option #3)
 * Just my thoughts. I think I'd probably favour #3 as it stands but I'd really want to kick this whole thing around and see what other people think. (Emperor 14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete This is truly the indiscriminate list, but even if one were to add a few words about each of these blue-links, it would not make this much more interesting. As the number of entries on this list suggests, telekinesis is actually a fairly common "power"... more so in cartoons and comics, where strings are not required, and in TV and film where strings are used to move things all about.  It's not that imaginative, when you get right down to it.  Mandsford 14:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am a strong Inclusionist but there is a limit. This is total WP:LISTCRUFT. Canjth 15:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete comletely sad and random list, one of dozens. Should be up for a block delete.  Anyway these lists are sort of unsourced/ non-noteable aren't they. Merkinsmum 22:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per not a directory of fictional characters with + lack of notability for this group.  Replace with a category Corpx 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fancruft. J I P  | Talk 10:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, deleting with the argument that it can also be a category is useless. On many topics, we have both categories and lists. Categories are good for, well, categorizing, but are horrible for navigating articles. Lists are far superior, as they allow different sorting of the articles, context to be added, references to be added, etc.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment before the closing admin. decides to delete the page pending on the results, note that I've just started categorizing a few characters. It would be great if someone can lend a hand, place Category:DC Comics characters with telekinesis and Category:Marvel Comics characters with telekinesis in their appropiate locations. Someone needs to create the parent cat., Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis for the remaining guys out there (ie, storybook characters, Star Wars people, etc.). I'd do the rest but I have to go. Real-world business calls. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously saddened that you have taken it upon yourself to recreate, all be it through sub cat, a category the was deleted as per a CfD consensus. - J Greb 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because concerns a notable topic that can be organized in a manner that is both convenient and helpful for many readers. Plus, obviously a lot of readers and editors do find these lists helpful, so I think a lot of the opposition to these articles are simple "I don't like" it arguments.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Complete and utter rubbish as a list. No discernible reference on criterias for inclusion - fails WP:NOR. Non-encyclopedic mish-mash list of chars from wildly different and incompatible genres that reads like a list randomly made up in school one day. Most definitely fails criteria #5 of WP:NOT - Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations - Cross-categories like these are not usually considered sufficient basis to create an article.--Eqdoktor 22:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-defined, relevant list, though it could use expansion into more than just links. Circeus 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any variant 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 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eqdoktor. Completely unsourced. shoy  14:33, 10 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.