Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powers and abilities of Sabretooth and Wolverine (detailed)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Powers and abilities of Sabretooth (detailed) and Power and abilities of Wolverine (detailed)
Sections of Sabretooth (comics) and Wolverine (comics) that were shortened due to excessive length and detail. After some edit warring on Wolverine (comics), one party simply split the section in question out rather than allowing it to be scaled down by consensus. Delete both. -Sean Curtin 04:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I don't care about comic book heroes. I hate them. But there's a lot of info about guys like Sabretooth and I wouldn't disagree with some sort of division to simplify the main page like History of Sabretooth and Why Sabretooth is such a badass. freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  06:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as this isn't necessary. Not every datum needs to be on Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, FIJAGH, I question whether fictional characters are encyclopaedic / notable anyway - maybe we need a Fictionary :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Fancruft. These do not need seperate articles. --Optichan 15:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The characters are notable, but there is no reason to have a separate article on their powers.  Inclusion of information should go through consensus debate in the original character articles/--Isotope23 16:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. These powers seem to be covered in their character articles.  The creation of pages to get around consensus removal of cruft is just wrong.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Leave them. Both of these articles have been debated and edited to such an extent that it's become a source of immature behavior, including name calling.  Personally, I don't see the harm in them.  Just an extention of the original articles in my view.  I was under the impression that an encyclopedia should provide as much information as possible about every article.  Fictional characters are highly debatable, of course, but I feel they have their uses just the same as every other article Wikipedia has to offer, which is to provide information to all interested parties.
 * Comment by User:206.28.61.184. User's first edit. --InShaneee 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. When I created these two articles, it was simply to end the edit wars that had been going on. I personally support the short versions, but I wanted people to have a place to place the details in if they so choose to.T-1000 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete This edit war seems like an issue for WP:ArbCom --anetode ¹ ² ³ 14:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both. While they read nicely (quite, actually), they really do seem excessive, and the fact they were created out of an edit war (and not to end it peacefully, might I add) make me all the more uncomfortable. Having read some of the debate on the relevant talk pages, I do agree that, barring the opinion of one troublesome user, this page can be chopped down sufficiently to fit back onto its parent page. --InShaneee 21:50, 25 October 2005 (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.