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" 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind[edit]

Delete vaguely named listcruft. I can manipulate wind just by standing in it. Wryspy 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably manipulate it by eating some baked beans too. Mandsford 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must be superhuman. Oh, and Delete There's no end to these possible topics. MarkBul 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am a strong Inclusionist but there is a limit. This is total WP:LISTCRUFT. Canjth 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an indiscriminate list. Edison 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this genre of characters Corpx 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article clearly states it is about superhuman powers. I wonder if the nominator has those as well... Anyway, lists like this provide a perfect way of navigating articles with similar topics. Apart from lack of sourcing, there is not much wrong with lists like this, as they are way superior to the use of categories (extra information, different sorting, sourcing). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:47, 5 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 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a very elaborate multi-part discussion of these in March 2007, decided finally on March 14 as [1] closed with great skill by Radiant; this was one of those to be listified. I don't want to go into the incredibly confusing details again, but I think the closure at CfD should be followed as a matter of practicality. I do not say that I necessarily agree with everything decided, but it reached a compromise and I think should be maintained. Please go read it carefully before trying to upset it. I can see us going back and forth on every one of these as there is no absolutely secure decision basis. Let's settle it for this & others by simply following an expert decision already reached. Any minor improvements will not be worth the time & effort. DGG (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of excellent organization in table format that is exactly the well-organized kind of reference stuff people expect out of a non-paper encyclopedia. Adding references, which should be easily found, would only make this otherwise well put together article all the better! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently OR as to whom to include on the list. Realize given the name of the article every fictional character would be included. See Butterfly effect for further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if it is accepted on good faith that the article needs to exist, it has weird contradictory conditions for inclusion on the list - hardly encyclopedic. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day--Eqdoktor 08:17, 8 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.