Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrokinesis

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 Snowball Keep. NAC, SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrokinesis

This article serves very little purpose; it is essentially a list of characters, and as such is a duplicate of information found here: List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This concept seems to be fairly well written about, and the list can be removed. I don't know much about it though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely removed the list of characters from the article. It was a duplicate of List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although consider renaming to avoid a possible neologism (for the same reason the list article isn't List of pryokinetic characters: see here). Pyromancy and pyrokinesis are common tropes in fiction and an analysis of same could be found. Powers ^T 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as an article on the psychic ability and I don't think its a neologism, but the standard word, . DGG (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or weak merge to Psychokinesis). Among paranormal circles this appears to be a commonly used term. The article has been cleaned up quite a bit, and could stand for a lot of expansion, particularly regarding claimants of pyrokinesis in the real world, but I do not consider these reasons to delete. Psychokinesis would be a valid place to merge, as it is considered a subset going by the definition chosen in the psychokinesis article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the list of characters removed, it can go back to being an article on the psychic ability for which plenty of references exist to flesh it out. It's definitely not a neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable psychic ability. Strong potential for verifiable and reliable sources.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2008 (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.