Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly

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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can fly[edit]

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

Per overwhelming consensus at:

these articles are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and original research and their deletion is uncontroversial. Some of these were prodded and declined without rationale by an editor who habitually declines prods on fiction-related articles. Reyk _YO! 04:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus noted at related AfD's linked by nominator, per the notion that we don't include non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and with good reason, and per the difficulty in maintaining such a list, and even in defining key portions of it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale doesn't … fly. Notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability specifically excluded lists such as the above because of the existence of main articles such as pyrokinesis and teleportation. It's not a cover-all for these articles.
  And you're going to have to do a lot better to argue that it is difficult to define a list of characters that are capable of pyrokinesis and teleportation. "These are fictional characters that are capable of pyrokinesis/teleportation." is pretty easy to type. It's not a difficult definition to construct at all. Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Points -- and pun -- well-taken. I stand by my personal non-encyclopedic cross-categorization concern, independent of any exclusion volunteered at a preceding AFD... but I suppose I have to agree that it's not terribly difficult to define these lists, and even maintenance wouldn't be a terrific issue. And your point regarding the previous AfDs is an important one. So... thanks for obliterating most of my delete rationale with your superhuman powers of rhetoric. I will append you to my forthcoming List of non-fictional Wikipedians who can manipulate opinion with logic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Permutation lists, add little, no sources indicate those particular categories are indicative of notability (the ultimate test if you get down to it), and didn't we just go through one of these? Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Shadowjams' comments. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Super strength and the ability to fly are two of the most common "superhuman" powers, so much so that they are the most trivial of cross-categorizations. But that doesn't make the other two teleportation and fire manipulation any better. Many of the entries on the list also fail to meet the inclusion guidelines for stand-alone articles. Including all fictional characters who has these superpowers is just too abstract of an inclusion criteria to be suitable for a stand-alone list without running afoul of WP:IINFO. And the fact that these lists are trivial cross-categorization between loosely associated topics, thus violating WP:NOTDIR doesn't help matters. —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not something that can be fixed by adding a few sources. These are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations which are what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There is no way these lists can ever be anything but a WP:COATRACK that synthesizes together a bunch of disparate quotes. Even if the quotes could come from reliable sources (and many are not) it's still being compiled in an original way and Wikipedia is not original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all There is a reason why these were kept as they are notable - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Perfect valid Wikipedia list, helping find articles for characters that have something in common. Dream Focus 00:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all perfectly valid is not a criterion. seems like Dream Focus likes inventing anything to keep stuff. 88.194.24.215 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 88.194.24.215 has made three edits total, two of which were to respond to me in AFDs. Dream Focus 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, it's trivial cross-categorization at best. Wikia or some other fan site would be happy to host this kind of content -- those sorts of sites have much lower standards.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:LISTPURP: Useful as informative and for Wikipedia development purposes. Also, exhaustiveness of a list is not a reason for deletion. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all indiscriminate list. there are many fictional characters not known outside the english speaking world so would not even make this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.87.125 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 192.194.87.125 has made three edits ever, all of which were in AFDs. Dream Focus 20:01, 30 July 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.