Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 August 31.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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, but keep List of fictional parasites. I will userfy if someone wants to make these into categories. There were a lot of !votes either way, but upon reviewing it I realized that many of the Keep votes were not particularly valid. I saw Wikipedia:I don't see why not, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:USEFUL, WP:INHERITED, WP:EFFORT, etc. The three articles are unreferenced, and seem to be indiscriminate lists and directories. The lists rely too much on original research. However, consensus seems to be to keep List of fictional parasites, as it has some references and the entries seem to have individual notability. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magic users

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating the remaining members of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, and numerous other AFDs linked from those discussions, these lists are not appropriate content on Wikipedia. It seems they have corresponding categories that duplicate the functionality of this list as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while many types of reference lists are more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia (except where WP:DIRECTORY applies) lists of this nature are not in line with the guidelines nor should Wikipedia be including all these lists. Kind of hinting at the idea of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. --Dripping oil (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kind of stupid, but I don't see any reason not to have this list. There is no problem with defining "fictional" and "magic" to determine the list. Borock (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. How a list is defined is one thing. How the categories virtually duplicate through cross-categorizations is another. --Dripping oil (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having both a list and a category for the same thing is common on WP. Borock (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason not to ignore your !vote since you don't seem to provide any "keep" rationale. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of fictional parasites, no opinion on the others. The other lists are selected by ability, but the Parasites list is selected by nature, and is more like the other members of Category:Lists of fictional animals e.g. species/families of animals. I see that some of those have already survived AfD with a Keep decision, see AfD:List of fictional penguins which refers to others. It was created as a result of a Listify decision at CFD with an explicit intention that it should not be proposed for deletion. These parasites should be accessible within Category:Parasites but a list is better than a category. I acknowledge that it needs work, and suggest a Rescue. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Axem Titanium (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Axem Titanium (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Axem Titanium (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete magic users, telekinetic folks and superhuman speedsters; keep fictional parasites. The distinction is that there is an attempt being made to make the parasites list something more than indiscriminate. The other three are wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format. Most of the superhero articles, with tables to explain that Marvel Comics and DC Comics were, indeed, comic books, got deleted during the summer. Obviously, "List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds" got away because it could move so quickly. Mandsford 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing the other AfD the category Category:Fictional characters who use magic seems to do the job just fine. This article also fails per WP:DIRECTORY, the only way I can see this article being kept is if it were renamed to something like List of Notable fictional magic users, but then a criteria would have to be placed to see who would qualify. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find third-party sources to WP:verify notability. The focus of these lists are a topic of original research and represent an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional parasites should definitely be considered separately. Weak Delete on the others as directory style listings better handled by categories. I continue to be of the belief that straight lists of articles (as opposed to ordered lists or those with extensive discussion about inclusion criteria or the nature of each entry) that duplicate categories are neither necessary nor helpful but have not generally seen a consensus for such a view. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 30 days to give time for most-interested-editors to improve with descriptions, groupings by type, etc., per a specified metric:

words per entry: >12 (copy lede in?)
Per prosesize (if it could count prose in lists) ratio of at least 40% prose size(text only)/wikitext.

or else delete especially if all listed characters are already in a category. --Lexein (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone shows signs of wanting to work on these over the next seven days, then I'd say to reconsider on whichever ones have that quality. Some do have categories, with Category:DC Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds and Category:Marvel Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds (although no category simply called "Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds"-- perhaps the Marvel ones deal with relevant social issues at superhuman speeds). Mandsford 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of fictional parasites and Delete all others. it's not that big and the fictional parasites on there have individual notability, if only someone would take the sources from the other articles and put it into this list. Plus, the gaming parasites even have reception here: http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/211647/10-most-blood-curdling-video-game-parasites/ The rest I think are on TV tropes right? So they'd be fine to delete. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all I thank nominator for notifying users kindly. Lots of AFD nominators does not bother spending time on notifying others and prefer a small AFD with a few people. [In similar manner lots of users doesn't even bother creating content/editing articles anyway]
- Wikipedia has some unique features that cannot be accomplished anywhere else. Yet, people constantly try deleting info valuable for specific users or specific needs. Lots of much more important and extensive comparison table and list based articles about comics have already been deleted. My point: Useful page/category for comic fans/researchers. Not useful to anyone else. If people put effort creating some useful/verifiable content for some readers, people may simply ignore, keep or just improve the page instead wasting time on talk page/AFD debates in long term. My point: whatever you say, the comparative article/categories are valuable and informative for comic fans and experts.
- Some general thoughts on AFDs [not current AFD]: Wikipedia policies are not clear, AFD discussions mostly based on a few or a few dozen coincidental users' opinion who happen to read via AFD tag or watchlist since most of the AFD's don't have a proper notification system. Yet there is no place users can change Wiki policies effectively as individuals. Even most of the AFD guidelines or AFD nominating steps are very vague, AFD nominating is easy with 1 button, but creating or keeping info is harder since there are various deletionist users around. Kasaalan (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be basically saying that it's WP:USEFUL to comic book enthusiasts, which is an WP:ATA. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but keep list of fictional parasites, per comments above, and because wikipedia is not a repository of eveything that exists, and these lists don't even meet WP:GNG as they aren't verifiable and problaby consist of original research. This is not true however for the parasites list and it should be treated separately from to the other three.Spatulli (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big problem is inclusion criteria, keep "parasites" as clear, others need careful thought - problem with eg telekinesis is that in some stories, characters use magic (or indistinguishable-from-magic technology) to move things around, yet our common idea of telekinesis usually involves mysterious "mental powers". It's not obvious whether magic would count. It might be possible to restrict to e.g. characters referred to as having telekinetic power in secondary literature. TheGrappler (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Main vote is below. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. I'm not accepting the arguments that these cross-categorizations are encyclopaedic. There are too many fictional characters in notable works who use magic for this list to reach any feasible level of completion, and for categorizing characters which meet the general notabiilty guideline, a category would arguably preferable, although I am aware that these lists were created due to the categories being deleted as overly arbitary. --Claritas § 09:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds a very reasonable argument for the magic-related lists; the "parasites" one seems rather different (it's certainly the odd one out in the batch), do you think that what you said works quite so well for them? There are certainly very many magic-using characters but I should think a list of fictional parasites is likely to be much shorter? TheGrappler (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional magic users, telekinesis and superhuman speeds; keep fictional parasites. The first three clearly fail WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. I don't think we can say the same about the parasite article though. SnottyWong ^communicate 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and make the necessary improvements. list of significant characters with a defined attribute in notable fiction is appropriate. Many of the characters on the lists are not merely significant, but notable, with Wikipedia articles about them. This is farfrom Indiscriminate: a list of magical characters (etc.) in all fiction, notable or not, would be indiscriminate. , or even a list of all characters significant or not which have appeared in notable fiction. But the double limitation here makes it justifiable. "Magical attributes" is a clear distinction, applying to almost all of the characters listed -- as is telekinesis and superhuman speeds. Parasites is unquestionably defined. If individual entries are challenged, they can be discussed in the talk pages. I point out that for almost all of this the work itself is a reliable source, and if sourcing is thought needed, an appropriate line from the work would do. (with respect to the argument about categories, lists and categories are complementary--lists have the advantage of indicating the work, which categories generally cannot, & are thus much better suited for browsing, a key function of lists.) DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument stems from saying the list-members are notable, which makes the list notable, but notability is not WP:INHERITED. Citing primary sources doesn't equate to notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - DGG isn't saying that primary sources give notability - he's mentioning primary sources only to point out that they can be used to check whether each list item possesses the defining attribute, that's all. TheGrappler (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep most, neutral on list of magic users as I'm not seeing a policy based reason to delete (unless something has changed "corresponding categories that duplicate the functionality" isn't a reason to delete as lists and categories can go hand-in-hand.. The List of fictional magic users I'd personally not mind seeing go away as it's probably non-maintainable and adding something about each character (which would make the list more useful than the category) would be really painful at this point. That's not a policy based reason to delete, but it is enough for me to stay neutral on. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy-based reason is WP:NOT#IINFO, which I paraphrased in the nomination. There seems to be consensus that this is true, given the numerous AFDs I listed above. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I don't see how the list of fictional parasites belongs in this group, that something totally different. Should've been nominated separately. There is nothing wrong with these list, they helping with navigation, and being far more desirable than a category would be. Dream Focus 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that there's WP:NOHARM to these lists as a reason to keep? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, his main argument was about navigation implications (list vs category as in WP:CLT) and then thinking about harm. "Harm" would be a sensible reason to delete, so it is valid to consider whether a page does no harm. It is really important for people to work out whether an article is doing harm, please please please don't criticize someone for taking time to think about harm implications at AFD, even if they're conclusion is that the article isn't harmful. (If someone's entire rationale is "Keep, no harm done" that's not a good rationale, and you're well within your rights to say so, but this isn't what Dream Focus has done here.) TheGrappler (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it looks silly to me, if people have gone to all the effort to make this list, clearly it is important to some people, and should be kept.Wxidea (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be WP:EFFORT. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the magic and other fictional lists per DGG. I found his rationale convincing. I think that it might be necessary to impose harsher inclusion criteria on the list than he suggests, but that is feasible. TheGrappler (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [previous keep vote was for parasites][reply]
Keep The justification offered by Axel Titanium for deleting this is "these lists are not appropriate content on Wikipedia. It seems they have corresponding categories that duplicate the functionality of this list as well." Neither of these are reasons to delete and general references to WP:IINFO do not make them so. Numerous editors have asserted that these lists are appropriate and Axel has shot them down by referring to policy and demanded they justify why these lists should be kept. In fact it is Axel's job to justify why they should be deleted and he has not done so. filceolaire (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2010 (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.