Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of omnipotent fictional characters

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IanManka (talk | contribs) at 06:32, 10 April 2007 (Closing debate; result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of omnipotent fictional characters

List of omnipotent fictional characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete article that cannot live up to its own name. This list of characters with omnipotence or "something near" it cannot be maintained. Most of the characters listed are not omnipotent. Omnipotence means having "unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". This does not apply to fictional characters. Even within the fictional context, it applies to almost none of the characters listed because most of them can be beaten by other characters and there are many, many things most of them cannot do. Recent attempts to clean up the article have failed because of subjective disputes over the issue of omnipotence. Inclusion of any character in the list usually invokes POV. As noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Omnipotence, the list does not and cannot work. There can be no such thing as "something near" omnipotence any more than anyone can count to infinity minus eight. The title is wrong anyhow. It would have to be "fictional omnipotent beings" rather than "omnipotent fictional beings" because you can't really be omnipotent if you're fictional but you can be fictionally omnipotent. Doczilla 07:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I added references for 15 of them. We are not here to judge what omnipotent means, just record who has been called omnipotent by reliable sources, including primary sources. Trying to decide who could beat who is pure OR. We're not here to judge the contradictions inherent in "something near" omnipotence, either. We don't need to think about whether the Beyonder can create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it. What needs to be done is lots of citations. I'm sure there's some comic where Superman or Lois says Mister Mxyzptlk is omnipotent. Citations are what this page needs, not deletion. A renaming may be in order, though. - Peregrine Fisher 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, calling them omnipotent is "pure OR" when there's no objective definition to evaluate them by. If by verification, you mean published sources that call them omnipotent, that's not good enough because the article title says they are omnipotent, and the sources frequently use the term incorrectly. Marvel Comics' online definition of omnipotent is not the dictionary definition of omnipotent. The fiction sources themselves (mostly comics in this case) show examples of where almost every one of those characters is not omnipotent. If someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent. It is not a matter of us debating who could beat whom. It's a matter of the fact that many of those characters have already been presented as defeatable. Doczilla 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only "pure OR" are comments like "if someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent." - Peregrine Fisher 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. "If someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent. [1]" --Action Jackson IV 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too subjective and unmanageable. I can think of many other examples of characters in science fiction that arguably have or obtain something like omnipotence - there are quite a few examples just in the work of Arthur C. Clarke. I suppose it could be turned into something more objectively manageable, using some novel concept that we could devise, but that would be original research. By the way, the current title so reminds of the ontological argument for the existence of God. If there's an omnipotent fictional character, it possesses the power to make itself real, right? Metamagician3000 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the reasons mentioned above. Every character with this supposed ability has been trumped at some point, thereby disproving it. The stories say as much. Perhaps another term? "Cosmic being/deity" etc. These characters do belong to a loosely-knit "pantheon" that has assembled when required. We just need a term that adequately describes their immense power. Omnipotent, however, they are not. Asgardian 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a matter of whether they really are (fictionally) omnipotent, it's whether we can cite something that says that they are/were omnipotent. People are talking about this as if this is something we decide, it isn't. - Peregrine Fisher 09:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - metaphysics of omnipotence in a nutshell: Doczilla makes a brilliant point: "If someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent.". It seems that a central argument for inclusion of such-and-such a character in this list is "well, on page 48 of issue #386, Lois Lane warns Batman that Dr. N. E. Farious is 'an omnipotent force to be reckoned with'", which doesn't quite hold water. The characters are speaking figuratively, and I would argue that most, if not all, of the secondary-source literature would also be throwing around the label in a figurative sense - not a literal one. So it might just as well be List of fictional characters which have been called "really big jerks", List of fictional characters who have been referred to as "evil masterminds", or List of fictional characters whose mamas are so fat. I know that last sentence reads like a reverse WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but my point is that this list is taking figurative, off-the-cuff terms and treating them as if they are literal ones (that bear some sort of measurable merit outside of pure trivia value) - and we all know where that slippery slope leads. ;-) --Action Jackson IV 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:LIST, is sourced. WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can see this being a very useful list. I completely agree with what Peregrine Fisher said- "It's not a matter of whether they really are (fictionally) omnipotent, it's whether we can cite something that says that they are/were omnipotent." In arguing about whether they are omnipotent and trying to decide a threshold for omnipotence, we are conducting original research. In citing sources for what is and what isn't omnipotent, we are creating a good article by Wikipedia's standards. They have missed some key ones though- why isn't God on the list? ;-) However, in answer to Metamagician3000- the ontological argument doesn't work, and this is good proof for that. I can see myself referencing this list, and I think it would be of great interest to a large number of people. J Milburn 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the arguments above, the list would have to be renamed to something like "List of fictional characters for whom claims of omnipotence have been made", if it were to be maintainable. This highlights a notability concern, as there seems no reason that list is notable. Any character in a storyline can assert someone is omnipotent. If there have been reliable sources which discuss the question of which characters are regarded as omnipotent, so that belonging to this list is clearly a matter of encyclopaedic interest to comics readers, then the list might be justified. However, then inclusion would have to depend on those sources to avoid problems with WP:OR. Mike Christie (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent reasoning of the nominator. POV/OR concerns abound. Noting also that arguments like "It could be useful" and "It's interesting" are not particularly compelling. Although I must say I would be hard-pressed to !vote to delete List of fictional characters whose mamas are so fat. Otto4711 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — none of the examples in the list as it stands right now look egregious to me, and compared to many lists which get AFDed, this is pretty easy to source. I don't see any reason to rename this page to "List of fictional characters for whom claims of omnipotence have been made", but perhaps "List of omnipotent or near-omnipotent fictional characters" would not be too unwieldy. Anville 13:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, due to both WP:OR and POV concerns. The inclusion criteria as set forth by the lead section are both vague ("possessing omnipotence, or something close to it") and is full of WP:WEASEL words. That you cannot nail down a discriminate, non-arbitray, NPOV set of inclusion criteria is a sign that this is something WP:NOT suitable for inclusion. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [[WP:|OR]]. I wouldn't necessarily object to a list of actual fictionally omnipotent characters -- but this seems to be a dumping ground for any really powerful, really knowledgeable, god or godlike character out there. A few things:
  • No, it's not enough to "cite something that says that they are/were omnipotent." Citations also have to be reliable. Book reviews, TV listings, solitications of books, game reviews, and fansites concerned with "ranking" superhero powers just don't meet that criteria.
  • I see only two primary sources used in citation in this article -- the rest are all secondary sources. Of those two, one is inaccurate, and the other looks like it may actually be citing Wikipedia itself.
  • Even when a primary source can be found, we do need to make a determination as to whether the subjective words of a character reflect actual omnipotence on the part of the subject.
End of the day, I can't see how this article can be salvaged. Actual fictionally omnipotent characters are very few and far between, while mistakenly believed to be omnipotent characters are a dime a dozen. ~CS 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it stands, even with the current tweaks, there is a fundamental disconnect between the title and the list. I'd like to say "Rename" to something a kin to "List of fiction characters described as omnipotent" or "List of fiction characters who are all but omnipotent" which seem more in the spirit of the actual list material, but anything along those lines invites POV arguments to keep the list manageable. (ie "Where the other characters or the writers serious?" or "How powerful does a character have to be shown to get to 'almost'?"). - J Greb 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- violates WP:OR and concerns about reliability of sources Thunderwing 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong: I read some of the "sources" that have been added indicating that the claimed omnipotency of the characters is denied in the sources: every one has some failings or inabilities or some group is going to undo them...OMNIPOTENT means all powerful, not just powerful, and a character that is has all the power to do anything cannot have inabilities or any group cannot undo them without removing the OMNI from the POTENT. Carlossuarez46 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's just take one for example "the Spectre (comics)" a quick perusal of the article says that "The Spectre began by seeking bloody vengeance against Corrigan's murderers in a grim, supernatural fashion. In years to come, the character would gain a reputation among editors and writers as being too powerful to get a dramatic handle on, but creator Siegel apparently felt otherwise, because in More Fun #60 (October 1940), only the eighth Spectre story, he gave the Dead Detective an almost literal deus ex machina, the Ring of Life, which would appear on the ghost's finger when he faced a menace beyond his powers (in six stories reprinted in recent years)." An omnipotent character by definition cannot be faced with a menace beyond his powers. Carlossuarez46 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's you doing original research on what omnipotence means in terms of a fictional characer. You're using OR to say the Spectre shouldn't be on the list. Also, all fiction is in the present, so being omnipotent at one time is all that's necessary. They exist in a "perpetual present tense" according to WP:TENSE#Check_your_fiction. - Peregrine Fisher 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since you indicate (a) that the meaning of "omnipotent" is susceptible to different interpretations and (b) being on the list is not dependent on omnipotence (however defined) except for some micromoment, that's further reason to delete because there are no objective criteria to be included or excluded from the list. Vote changed to strong delete because these additional reasons to delete that seem impossible to overcome. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Peregrine, I think you're demonstrating some difficulty understanding "check your fiction" as a prose styling, and how it should be applied in a discussion. When writing about a fictional work, we write about it in the present tense because the conceit behind fiction is that it is unfolding before our eyes. This doesn't mean that there is an abstract "all fiction is happening at once" -- obviously there is a chronology. The "literary present" is a grammatical concept in regard to how we write about fiction, not a philosophy by which we disregard the changes or development of a fictional character. This concept is irrelevant here. It's something to be applied while writing the Spectre article. ~CS 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the actual issue at hand: You are correct that it is not our place to pick apart at character established as omnipotent with reasons why that character should not actually be called omnipotent. But it is our responsibility to think critically about where and when the work "omnipotent" is being used, and whether a list is accurately reflecting the work of fiction. That is what this list fails to do. A textually omnipotent character would be like God in Paradise Lost: an express issue explored within the text is the character's omnipotence, even if the word omniscient is not actually used. "Milton's God" would be a perfectly appropriate character for this list. However, the citations in this article are not pointing us toward works of fiction which explore or feature omnipotent characters. They're pointing toward: a) powerful characters who people within the fiction mistake as omnipotent, b) instances where reviewers, advertisers, and TV listings have used the word omnipotent as an adjective, and c) instances where Wikipedia editors have arbitrarily decided that a character should be described as omnipotent. These are not reliable, appropriate, encyclopedic, or accurate; and it is our place to determine what is reliable, appropriate, encyclopedic and accurate. ~CS 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) "Mistake as omnipotent." That's OR. Who are we to say if they're right or wrong. b) "Used the word omnipotent as an adjective." They're describing an omnipotent character, not sure what other kinds of speech they should using. c) If a ref isn't reliable, remove it. I added lots so there would be plenty left. - Peregrine Fisher 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) Who are we? We're readers of the fiction. If a character is defeated, he is not omnipotent. I don't believe it's fair to demand a reliable source, as authors of secondary sources would probably not wish to waste valuable printing space on reasserting the completely, blindingly obvious minute details of when a character is being literal, when a character is speaking figuratively, when a character is overreacting, etc. Anyway - as I've said before, it seems that a lot of these claims demand a very, very literal reading of the source texts in order to stand up. B) I think it's reasonable to say that there's a fair amount of "hyperbole" in TV listings and advertisements, and I think it's just as fair to cast light upon the oftimes hyperbolic nature of review texts, as a literary device to capture some spirit of the original work. --Action Jackson IV 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same. You're making lists based on any random quality or ability. Making your examples comparable to the omnipotent character category would give us things like List of singlemost powerful illusionists in each of their respective universes, List of infinitely fast fictional characters, List of fictional characters that somebody somewhere called the most severely autistic person in the world, List of the deadest fictional characters. We're not arguing about whether or not to make lists of fictional characters. We're talking about the nature of the list. There's no hyperbole in specifying things like fictional characters who can create illusions. Doczilla 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you could quickly reference a list of 30 such individuals. If you could easily find refs (like I did for this page) for 30 "singlemost powerful illusionists in their respective universes" then it might be an important characteristic. The way we know that isn't an important characteristic is that there's no refs to back it up. Same for the rest. The notability of fictional omnipotence is demonstrated by the large number of reliable sources that can be found on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What "reliable sources"? The citations in this article include things like Amazon.com product descriptions, and other wikis. "Reliable" does not mean "random stuff I found using Google." ~CS 05:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the reliability of some of the sources is the problem, then that's not a reason to delete. Tell me which ones you don't like. I'll tell you why their reliable, or remove/replace them if they aren't. - Peregrine Fisher 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's not much to be said that hasn't already, the list is unmanageable. Especially in it's current state. There have been some omissions made on the DC list that makes no sense. For example, the removal of Imperiex. It clearly states in the official DC Encyclopedia that he is virtually omnipotent, but I guess even that isn't good enough. As for the standard where if they were "defeated" then they are not omnipotent, that pretty much eliminates 99% of the list for both Marvel and DC. Even the Living Tribunal was shown to be ineffective against the bearer of the Heart of the Universe, so therefore he should be eiliminated based on that standard? It's too overbroad. If there is no standard by which we can agree to, then there's no point in keeping this list because then it becomes too subjective. ShotokanNbjj 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per much of the above, but in my mind primarily for redundancy and an inherently arbitrary design. 1) Redundancy: the majority of this list mirrors in miniature the existing articles Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics) and Cosmic entities (DC Comics), lists of characters of a certain type that at least ignore questions of level of power while still giving basic descriptions and links. 2) Arbritrary: the problem with almost all lists of this sort generally falls under the guidelines of indescriminate collections of information. Peregrine Fisher does indeed have a valid point that wikipedia does not care if these characters are omnipotent or not, only whether it is possible to cite that they have been described as such. However, this begs the question of whether one description of an adjective merits a list. I doubt there would be much debate about an AfD for "List of Strong Fictional Characters" or "List of Generous Fictional Characters" regardless of the quality of citation. As used, "Omnipotent" is simply a descriptive modifier, only of interest because it appears to be a larger and more impressive modifier than other adjectives. I respect the work put into this list, but given the duplication of work of most of it, I can't bring myself to suggest keeping given that underlying problem. -Markeer 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as while the list of omnipotent characters may seem to be beaten quite often, this is usually because they purposefully engineered their defeat (does not apply to all). Also, being "omnipotent" is not the same as being "omniscient", the ability to know all and hence wield absolute power wisely. Article has reliable references and maybe the title should be changed to List of fictional characters deemed to be omnipotent within their respective fictional Universe or some variant. Zuracech lordum 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_omnipotent_fictional_characters&oldid=121620824"