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

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can alter probability[edit]

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

Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. It also contains original research, which violates WP:NOR - I can't verify any of the claims concerning the "origin" without using the original texts. Note that Probability manipulation in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. Claritas § 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Even though my finger prints are all over this, and a number the like lists, I'm really ambivalent to it being retained. Most of these lists are a result of old CfDs the nutshell of which was 1) that the categories required more information to include articles that wound up on the category page and 2) the categories were creating clutter in a number of places. And this does give rise to the concern that this will push the need/desire to correlate these characters in fiction back into categories. Beyond that... lists of examples can be, and often are encyclopedic in nature. These lists tend to push the edge of that since it's an attempt to "not offend by omission" and avoid edit warring of the examples that are included. As for OR, that's a bit of a double edged sword here. Most examples are going to be based on the primary source, there is little way around that, but it should be something explicitly stated in the primary source, not something the reader interprets. - J Greb (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really hate all of these types of articles, which do everything except explain why a character is on the list. I suppose that I could click on the blue link to see what's so special about "Amos Fortune", but the only reason I would want to look at a list is to be able to see similarities and differences. It's original synthesis, badly done, with the authors filtering out anything that might be remotely of interest to anyone who might consult it, so I can see other things I can say beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd compare it to creating a list of the fifty American states and the only information about the state would be what time zones it's in, whether it's east or west, whether its flat or mountainous, and whether it's small, medium or large. Yawn. Clearly, people have worked hard on it and might even try to improve it, but for the most part, these are all boring and useless. Mandsford 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - It is a bit of all, previous discussions, OR, NOCONTENT, synthesis, and so forth. Frankly, these lists are pretty useless in their current form. On top of that they hardly contain 1% of the fictional subjects with these abilities, so they might become somewhat unmanageable once they are near-complete. --Pgallert (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think the probability of this being deleted can be altered no matter how big ones superpower is =p. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the others of this ilk, it is purely WP:OR and cross-categorizations that violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. It isn't part of an encyclopedic topic, and how exactly do you define "alter probability"? The crossing of fictional character X with ability Y is a trivial, non-encycopedic bit of opinion that generally results in an overly broad as such a list is not realistically finite in number, truly definable, nor are they appropriate topic for a list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most, if not all, of those lists are just repositories of loosely associated topics based on a trivial cross-categorizations. They are also horrendous train wrecks of original research and many of the entries on those lists don't even have stand-alone articles. —Farix (t | c) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments at the other AfDs for articles of this sort. Reyk _YO! 19:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An encyclopedia is not a repository for fanboy minutiae. None of this has the slightest bit of real-world impact or notability. (per the mass AfD at (Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability) Tarc (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ongoing arguments and consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. SnottyWong ^gossip 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic just fundamentally disagrees with Wikipedia and it's not a question of fixing it. Unencyclopedic cross-categorization as per WP:NOTDIR. There is nowhere except Wikipedia where this is covered which makes this WP:OR. I'm not trying to insult anyone's work when I even say this should be a snowball delete and I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere that this could be saved by a transwiki. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:59, 18 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.