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. Although the arguments in favour of keeping this article make some valid points, the consensus seems to be that this list is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants[edit]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This list has WP:NOTDIR issues, because it is an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no coverage of superhuman "characters who can manipulate plants" in reliable sources: [1]. Claritas § 18:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The real question here is how do we limit the characters listed on the list. Do we limit the lists to characters just characters with stand-alone articles that assert the character's notability independently of the works they are form? (The position I would naturally default to.) Do we also include characters that have an entry on a character list? Or some other inclusion critical. Because including all fictional characters who can manipulate plants is just too abstract of an inclusion criteria to be suitable for a stand-alone list without running afoul of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. The base subject, Plant manipulation in fiction, isn't notable and does not have an article. So the list has to explain why fictional characters who can manipulate plants are notable instead of just being random trivia. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go with how major or notable the character in the story then. If a character's plant manipulation is a major factor in the story for example that would be worthy of inclusion or if the character is notable enough itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Importance in a work of fiction is too arbitrary of a standard, based entirely an editor's personal opinion or analyst, and usually unverifiable. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While I dispute the status of this as cross-categorization (after all, plant manipulation is a "real", if lame, fictional superpower), I still don't see any good reason this is a list rather than just a category. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly valid list article. Any character featured in a notable work should be listed, not just those with their own articles. It shows how often notable media uses this in it. All information is confirmed in the primary source. List articles don't need coverage in reviews somewhere. Dream Focus 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If every character is included, then the list would definitely violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. This list may be salvageable as a navigational list, but you have to draw a very clear line on what to included. —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete this might be more appropriate as a category. This list doesn't provide much more than the characters' names. Their source of power is an in-universe detail and doesn't seem appropriate for organizational purposes. The publisher/medium information can just as easily be viewed at individual articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, fails WP:NOTDIR which reads People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Fictional characters that manipulate plants are not a culturally significant phenomenon for our purposes unless there is adequate sourcing to prove it, which I cannot find. ThemFromSpace 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize. List brings little to the table. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 22 June 2010 (GMT)

The list shows what series they are from. A category wouldn't do that. Easier to navigate this way. Dream Focus 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh lordy, could there ever be a more arbitrary collection of information? wikia:list exists for this cruft, and Dream Focus is an administrator there so should be more than happy to oblige in transwikiing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, this applies to several (possibly all) of the other superhero lists in this article's see also section. These were created historically when the categories were deleted. Any chance they can be co-nominated? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally dislike mass nominations except in uncontroversial circumstances, because they don't allow for the merits of each individual list/article to be taken into account. If this AFD closes as delete or categorise, I'll nominate them too. Feel free to do so yourself, if you'd like to speed the process up. Claritas § 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has an objective inclusion criteria, and is not too broad or narrow. I don't agree that this is unreasonable cross-categorization, since someone with plant manipulation abilities would necessarily be a fictional character. As with any other list, content needs to be limited to that which is verifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How does it have "objective inclusion criteria"? The majority of the entries are utterly unrelated to one another, as much as if they were grouped by eye colour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Gardening is a form of "plant manipulation", so your claim that only fictional characters can "manipulate plants" is hardly correct..Claritas § 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course. <;)>But first merge with List of fictional plants who can manipulate fictional characters, which should be started with Audrey II.</;)> Oh, and it's been 'rescued' — wikia:list:List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Feed me, Seymour!

• Delete a coatrack of primary research that violates WP:OR... don't just make up categories and then start hanging examples in there... non encyclopedic cross category which goes against WP:NOTDIRArskwad (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic list based on trivial intersection. While not per se OR, it would be hard to keep it out of this list since the concept of "plant manipulation" is not well defined and is treated differently in different fictional works. However, even if well defined and sourced the list would still be a directory based on a trivial intersection, some which Wikipedia does not include. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if only to counter the illogical arguments above. IINFO doesn't apply, and this is NOT a trivial intersection. A trivial intersection is things like "financiers who parachute" where the two categorizations are unrelated--this case is not that. Likewise, any list that can have articulable inclusion criteria isn't IINFO, because it is, by definition, discriminate. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 28 June 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.