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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can create illusions[edit]

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. Perhaps categorization is more appropiate, but it would be nice to know your thoughts beforehand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure original research. Kariteh 16:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are infinite such lists that could be created, but Wikipedia won't be a respectable and useful encyclopedia. CG 17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat As pointed out before, the list exists because the cats were thrown out with a CfD. 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 03:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Delete vaguely named list. Everyone can create illusions of one kind or another. Wryspy 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IIRC the line of reasoning "Every character can create illusions of one kind or another." was part of the reason that the category was deleted in favor of a list. Since a list can be more easily edited to remove "Character has used shadow puppets to distrat others" inclusions. Also, since it is an article, the premise can be spelled out and enforced with the lead section. - J Greb 07:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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 13:19, 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))[reply]
    - 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 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - I am a strong Inclusionist but there is a limit. This is total WP:LISTCRUFT. Canjth 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, they're referring to illusionists, not inclusionists. Mandsford 21:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this list was created by prior agreement, out of a category, by a bot. So how good can the raft of similar human-created articles be?Merkinsmum 22:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. They claim the article covers "fictional characters," include lots of recent comicbook characters who can "create illusions," then leave out Mandrake the Magician and The Shadow, showing hopeless recentism. A list of "all fictional characters" with this ability would be immense. If the article were based on published articles, a broader view would be likely, including the historical development. Every fictional magician belongs in the list, for starters. The best approach might be to mention the most famous examples in the article on the fictional ability or superpower, and to include only those for whom substantial coverage can be found in reliable and independent sources. Edison 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Fleet (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory of fictional characters with <power> + lack of notability for this group. Replace with a category if notability for this power is found Corpx 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a single article, but please couldn't we have combined all of these in one AfD. Usually that is a bad idea, but in this case I think it actually would have been an advantage. BTW: if the nominator thinks something should be speedy deleted, he should tag it as such. AfD is NOT for speedy deletions, but for DISCUSSION about deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. I believe several similar articles have also been deleted recently? Rehevkor 15:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient 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)[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.