Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users


 * 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 to delete; I'd like to see this made into a category, though. - Philippe 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional magic users

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

Is pretty much an indiscriminate collection of information, due to the fact of the sheer number of fictional universes that have "magic" in them, is much better covered in related categories (ie. Category:Magical girls), and completely unsourced. Vivio Testa rossa  Talk Who 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: If deleted, please place a copy of the list at the time of deletion on a subpage of my userpage so I can rework it into List of fictional magic users by universe and address the 'making it better than a category' issue. Celarnor Talk to me 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It's a list, therefore doesn't need to be sourced as the appropriate sources should already be in the article.  It is not indiscriminate--in fact, it is quite discriminate as 'fictional magic users'; although it can certainly be sub-listed for "fictional female magic users", "magic users in universe x", etc.  Furthermore, categories do not replace lists.  From WP:CLN (emphasis mine):These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa., and Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Also, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list.  Celarnor Talk to me  12:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This list just seems too broad to be of any real usefulness.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a corect use of a list according to guidelines. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has clearly stated criteria. Though the red links could be removed and the formatting tweaked, needs sections etc and maybe a title change, it has clear worth. -- neon white user page talk 14:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can see this being useful as a list of lists, but as a general catalog of all fictional magic users I can see it being VERY indiscriminate. Nearly every piece of sword and sorcery fiction has a magic user, many video game characters can be considered magic users, many comic book characters have a magic user class... television... horror fiction... I just don't see how this list can ever be useful for actual research as it is currently formed. It appears to me as indiscriminate as a list of fictional characters who use guns.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be wrong with that list? Celarnor Talk to me  15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I probably would have done this a bit differently; alphabetical order may not be the ideal arrangement, and alternative schemes for arranging the information by archetype might be better.  Still, the list has clear criteria for membership and serves the valid purposes of cross referencing and arousing curiosity.  Actually, a list of fictional characters that use guns might also be a valid list, and a list of adventure heroes that refuse to use guns would also be a good list to make. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then where do we draw the line for indiscriminate? The point can also be raised that I can't find any actual guideline (not essay) that specifically discusses any criteria for deleting lists, so AfD's like this I always feel are a little bit of barking in the dark. List AfD precedent is split on the matter  and I think it comes down in most cases to personal opinion. If I'm very far out of the park, please correct me.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * List of chemical compounds with unusual names isn't discriminate at all, for obvious reasons. It's entirely subjective, as is list of fictional obese characters.  My general test for whether or not something is indiscriminate is by taking this first possible thing that could go in.  If it's debatable at all whether it should be in there or not, then I see it as indiscriminate.  In this case, we have a clearly defined criteria of what goes into the list: This list includes fictional characters who use actual magic, in fictional worlds where it exists. Celarnor Talk to me  15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As to finding some policy, a lot of people throw 'indiscriminate' around with lists, but the indiscriminate that the policy in question refers to actually refers to Wikipedia as a whole, not lists in particular. Relevant information may be found at WP:CLN and WP:Lists (stand-alone lists). Celarnor <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This list (and most WP:LIST lists) do not closely match any of the actual items claimed to be "indiscriminate information".  The sheer vagueness of that very problematic label makes it an inviting substitute for "I don't like it".  Some people hate detailed coverage of fiction with the same vehemence that I hate management-fad gibberish.  The other arguments about "indiscriminate information" expanded beyond the text boil down to arguments aimed not at the merits of lists, but rather at the diligence (or laziness) of editors.  That a list or category contains a large number of entries that potentially qualify is not a good reason to delete it in my opinion.  Perhaps the most indiscriminate, arbitrary, and hard to maintain list of all, Category:Living people, exists because of Office mandate.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thing to keep in mind regarding this last point is that Wikipedia is not working toward a deadline. It's perfectly fine if a category and a list sharing a subject don't match up at any given point in time.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I believe these types of AfD's are difficult to assess, they really hang on personal viewpoints and I just personally think this list might be too wide. In response to Celanor's criteria for inclusion here are a few more precedents that might apply better, but I'm sure you'd be able to find just as many to bolster a keep. There really needs to be some kind of consensus on list guidelines. ,,,,--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These things that you keep pointing to are generally lists of things that aren't notable (List of basilisks in fantasy fiction and games) in and of themselves; the information in the list doesn't have to be sourced within the list, it has to be sourced within the linked article. Since there aren't many notable basilisks on Wikipedia, that list isn't going to be very useful.  Same with the list of women in playboy by birthday.  Others suffer from verifiability and RS issues (List of Final Girls, List of people who have taken psychadelic drugs).  With the possible exception of the last one, none of those were indiscriminate collections of information.  If anything, they were too discriminate. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, everyone but you seems to be just fine going on our existing guidelines. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some would argue that fictional characters don't deserve a place on wikipedia because they can not be sourced outside of the fiction that they are part of, and that too has a split precendent. Just a note.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe they deserve a place unless they can meet the notability criteria. However, there are several that do.  news pieces and scholarly articles are written about characters all the time.  Thinking just in terms of this list and off the top of my head, Gandalf, Saruman, and Faust come to mind.  All have been the subject of scholarly literary research.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point of view, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic and let the AfD run its full course. I'm just voicing my thoughts on the matter, same as you, and I will gladly accept whatever consensus is offered up, but I most likely won't make further comment.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The criteria for inclusion appears to be pretty clear, and I don't see subjectivity being an issue. I'd like to see some improvements (like maybe the work of fiction from which these names come) since if the list is being used as a reference it would be more useful at a glance if there was a little more information about each entry.  Other than that, I don't see any violations here.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When this is over (assuming it doesn't get deleted), I'll get something going on to the talk page to try and move it to List of fictional magic users by setting and make it so it's something other than an alphabetized list. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete in present form. I see nothing here a cat can't do. However if significantly improved beyond a cat, may change my opinion. Halfmast (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This should definitely be a category, not an unreferenced list which will then spawn 1-2 line articles most of which will end up as candidates for deletion. I agree with Torchwood, you might as well have a list of characters from novels that use guns. I'm recognise some of these and I read some of the books they are in, but I still find it useless.Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While it's just an essay, WP:USELESS does make a valid point re: the previous two "delete" !votes. If these characters are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries, nothing in policy excludes a list of them.  While it can certainly be better categorized (see the comments above) there's no valid cause offered here for deletion.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But -- not all of them have their own Wikipedia entries, and what is going to stop anyone from adding characters with no entry? And just because they have entries doesn't make them notable or the article not a typical candidate for deletion. Take Ezekiel Zick which I picked at random. It redirects to List of Monster Allergy characters, another list. Or Caster (Fate/Zero) - I'm not clear about guidelines about characters, but if barebone plot articles don't meet guidelines, how do these?Doug Weller (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a content problem, not a problem inherent to the list. The list itself is perfectly discriminate.  As is standard, the articles that are listed have to contain references to the information that they are magic users.  The ones you listed should be removed from the list and replaced by verifiable, sourcable articles on characters that have their own independent coverage, such as Gandalf, Faust, Saruman, Skeletor, Merlin, Andrew Ketterley, Albus Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry Potter, for starters.  Remember that this isn't a "we should delete this" argument, this is a "we should improve this list" argument, as the problem is fixable by methods other than deletion.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no issues with the notability of the list entries or putting refs in the list. Why would you need refs there rather than in the main articles (unless this list had additional data, which it does not)? My reason for deletion is that a list is the wrong format for this information. It should be a cat.Halfmast (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lists and Five pillars: notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, discriminate and organized, and consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. With resepect, Lists is a style guide and says little related to this discussion. Categories, lists, and navigational templates is a better guide and gives the advantages and disadvantages of lists v cats. All of the very sound arguments you make to keep the list also apply to a category. Converting this list to a category would not remove any significant content or functionality, but it would add automatic sorting and updating. It's what you seem to want and more. Halfmast (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I could live with a category on this. At least a category could be manageable.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would remove the potential for improving navigability. As a category, it could never improve beyond what it is now; i.e, it would just be a page with a bunch of names on it.  You couldn't organize it in any meaningful fashion for humans, rather than the MediaWiki software to read. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  06:15, 1 April 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.