Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Charmed


 * 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. Sr13 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of terms in Charmed

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:NOT - This is a list of terms and their definitions, which is what a dictionary is for. On top of that, all these words are cited to the episodes instead of a secondary source, qualifying it as WP:OR Corpx 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless these terms are necessary to explain the Charmed article they are not appropriate for Wikipedia (even then I would urge a sidebox approach). That said, this could be a useful addition to the Charmed wiki. Cedars 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, I just thought I'd bring up the article Spells in Harry Potter, which seems quite similar.  Useight 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of that either, but at least it has some references. Corpx 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think wiktionary wouldn't want fictional words and phrases (and I guess WP:NOT exists because wiktionary already covers the real-life dict defs, so this policy should not apply here). Furthermore, this is one list collecting X phrases, not X pages about one dict def. It's also not indiscriminate and is suitably referenced, so I think this list is fine. (Except that it's a bit fancrufty, but then again I've never watched this show.) – sgeureka t•c 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it referenced? It's referenced to the episode where the phrase was mentioned, making it a primary source and not really a valid reference Corpx 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How else would you reference it? The shows definitions for things are different than the normally accepted myths. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The proper reference would be to find a non-trivial independent third party (ie. not blogs or somebody's web page, but a reliable source, online or not, such as a newspaper article or a book) that is discussing terms in Charmed. Are there any? (To be honest, after a search I'm not seeing many non-trivial third parties discussing any aspect of the TV program, let alone the words used in it.) -- Charlene 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple amazon search:, although I'm not sure how trivial or third-party they are. But almost every major cult-genre TV show publishes so called companion guides, and if it's just that the list doesn't mention those (official and/or independent) guides, then slap unreferenced on them. In spite of that, Manual of Style (writing about fiction) says "Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source" (and then goes on to say that of course secondary sources are still preferred.) – sgeureka t•c 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point - Referencing it like that is WP:OR Corpx 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The page combines the powers, demons, ect. The page is to keep all the terms from having their own articles. The charmed episodes use a lot of powers, demons that may be confusing when used in articles as they are different the common myths. (Titans, Valkyries, ect.) A couple editors are currently working on cleaning up the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sgeureka. Notes here: first is that it is planned to have the list trimmed considerably to remove any term not strictly spoken on the series (reduce fancruftiness...it'll be quite a task, bear with us); second, a primary source does not original research make.  Certainly secondary sources are always preferred, but primary sources can be used. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. " per WP:OR Corpx 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you are misinterpreting that line yourself. How are we "interpreting" source material, when we simply take a term used on the series and tell what it is?  That isn't an interpretation, but a statement of in-universe facts stated from an out-of-universe perspective (which is perfectly acceptable).  I concede that list-creep has occurred, but as I said, efforts are underway to clean it up. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It's a fancrufty list of definitions. If this article stays, some of the terms are not Charmed-specific, e.g. telepathy, time travel. What next? "Door" - a main entrance to the Halliwells' house that frequently gets blown up? Clarityfiend 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite for your favorite TV show. Propaniac 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Very little to point out that hasn't already. I know that similar articles exist because they haven't been deleted yet. But per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that's not a legitimate argument. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While it's interesting, the article is just cruft that belongs elsewhere. Trusilver 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as mentioned many terms, people and demons in the Charmed universe differ from their real world conterpart. Also as mentioned the article is being cleaned up. I also partly agree with Clarityfiend. Only Charmed specific terms etc. should be used in the article. Where real world terms etc. are used and differ significantly enough in-universe, these should be kept to disticnguish them from their real world counterpart. One other thing is the argument about references. Surely the best reference is the TV show itself.--NeilEvans 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The TV show is a primary reference, just like one would be in witnessing a car accident. The testimony from the eye witness is not acceptable here.  However, if a journalist took a quote from the eye witness, that quote would be.   Corpx 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * However (using your example here), this list doesn't use the person witnessing the event as the source, but a security video recording of the accident, which can be verified by anyone watching it. This list simply transfers a visual and spoken source into written text, and then lists the source for the info. Describing/summarizing something that has sources does not constitute WP:OR. – sgeureka t•c 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research, written in an in-universe way. A lot of these are dumb with a capital D, as well; who'd've thought that electricity generation is the ability to generate electricity? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like we said, we're trying to clean it up, there is a lot of cruft we're trying to kick out. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All of it is original research. Cleaning it up won't fix that problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - please save us from trivia about shows that have no redeeming value. There is no purpose to tracking this type of information. Trivia is not what an encyclopedia is about. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional comments re:delete that I list here for convenience.
 * 1) Notability_(fiction) allows this kind of list (see point 2), even if only vaguely.
 * 2) The need of cleanup and minor or major de-fancrufting is not ground for deletion, especially as people have already volunteered for cleanup work. (If however the article has not improved in a reasonable time from now, maybe because it can never be more than fancruft, which I doubt, then it should be nominated again.)
 * 3) In-universe style is not a ground for deletion, however In-universe exists for cleanup advice.
 * 4) Having encyclopedic lists of terms in specialized real-life fields also exist, see Glossary of Lepidopteran terms for an example.
 * 5) Yes, this list needs trimming to get rid of fancrufty-one-minor-appearance-in-one-episode-only items, and/or expansion for the important terms. – sgeureka t•c 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you interpret "List of minor characters" to mean "List of terms" ?? List of terms is in violation of WP:NOT (policy) and this is purely WP:OR, which is from WP:FIVE. Corpx 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because other article exists doesnt mean this should - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not interpret "List of minor characters" to mean "List of term", but rather "minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts" as "List of term". And as said before, WP:OR is made-up stuff, however almost all items on this list cite their (primary) sources as recommended per Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (i.e. it is not OR). I am well aware that OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I don't know why you're citing it here. Do you want to imply that Glossary of Lepidopteran terms shouldn't exist? Because I thought it was a fine example that demonstrated that a list of short-ish definitions of a specialised field can very well make for an encyclopedic list. (I have already stated my concerns about this page before though, and they are not all positive. I am however concerned that a let's-delete-it-because-it's-not-perfect crusade takes places here instead of there-is-room-for-legitimate-improvement-so-let's-keep-it. And I am saying this as person who has never watched an episode of this show.) – sgeureka t•c 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research is also conclusions derived from personal observation of the subject. Watching Charmed then forming fragments of the show into lists and dictionaries and histories and such (as opposed to summarizing the plot in a way that reflects the structure of the plot) is original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that you really made me doubt my policy knowledge, I re-read WP:OR, and I quote (I now resist the temptation to bold the following sentences and add three exclamation marks): "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." I also read section A of the Charmed term list, and only term "Amulets of Protection" makes some claims where I can't tell if they're OR or not, the rest is fine as it is descriptive and perfectly in line with WP:OR. – sgeureka t•c 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Charmed is not itself a source. It is the subject. If I were to add to cat, I could not add my observations of my own cat with.
 * Additionally, this list synthesizes the plot of the various Charmed episodes into a guide on its setting. This synthesis is rather lame synthesis, since it's just watching the show and noting whenever a spell is cast and making a list of these spells, but you are still watching the show and drawing original conclusions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please also note this line from WP:OR: An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following....It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. (WP:RS) Neologisms, of course, are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities (in this case a community of Charmed writers and fans). For terms used in a work of fiction, the work itself can be an appropriate source but only to a certain extent. For the scope and nature of this type of article, independent third-party sources should be required and the onus is on the contributer to provide a source if challenged. Canuckle 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never cited that, and don't consider it relevant to this case. WP:NOT is not really relevant here, IMO, since this doesn't even rise to the level of being a dictionary. This is "List of (random things that don't fit into a list that might be useful) in Charmed". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was responding not to you but to sgeureka who cited WP:OR as supporting making descriptive claims. I noted it also excludes neologisms. Canuckle 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. WP:OR says the work of fiction (or parts of this fiction) is not a reliable source, however Manual of Style (writing about fiction) says the opposite. Non-episodic sources seem to exist (e.g. amazon "Now the millions of teenage Charmed fans can share the sisters' secrets and guard wisely the spells, incantations and love potions revealed in this book",  "The Book of Shadows a compilation of the spells used on each show",  "A guide to the television show and its stars includes background information on Wicca, examines tools and elements of witchcraft, and provides recipes and rituals beneficial for success in love or business.") If some-one wants to add them as references, just please don't fall back on the no-win fallacy that "it's not a second/third-party publication, therefore it's trivial" and "it's not an official guide, therefore it's unreliable" then ;-). I've made a note on Talk:Charmed and asked fans of that show to add references to this list. Now it's in their hands. – sgeureka t•c 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I used, | The Book of Three to reference it, would that be acceptable for you guys? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just another part of the subject, since it's an officially licensed guide written by writers on the series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary. In addition, the article is heavily origional research.-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia has categories for Category:Glossaries and Category:Lists of words, which have roughly 200 pages in them total. I have added Category:Glossaries to the list, and therefore additionally (to my already stated keep "vote") recommend renaming this list to Glossary of Charmed terms or something similiar if it survives this AfD, in order to make the list's right of existance more obvious. (The OR claim needs to be judged by the closing admin, so I won't comment on it any further than I already have.) – sgeureka t•c 12:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Each glossary should be judged on its own merit and there is just no real world coverage for a fictional one like this. Corpx 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.