Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Charmed Sons


 * 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. Wickethewok 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Charmed Sons
Article about small online fan group, written by the movement. None of WP:WEB criteria met, no outside source, no outside reference, no recorded public reaction, partly fanfiction. Violation of WP:WEB, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research. As a whole, article is highly unnotable, it is possibly fancruft, vanity information and advertising.

EDIT: Furthermore, members and supporters of this fan group, in response to the deletion nomination, have been vandalizing many Charmed-related Wikipedia pages, two of them being IP-blocked today. Creators of The Charmed Sons article have continuously attacked Wikipedia contributors and have admitted in their own forum (see below for screenshots) of using multiple Wikipedia accounts to win this voting. AdamDobay 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC), edited by AdamDobay 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable as per the extensive reasonings above. Perhaps if proof was supplied that its actually being considered, even then its still crystal ballism until it goes into production at least and is acknowledged by the studio. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, for all the above reasons. I bet it was Britannia from TWoP that made this too. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep--I didn't create it Zythe, but I've contributed to it. And you can go on Wes Ramsey's own website for confirmation of actor's involvement, as well as the site to see that he has done an online chat and been encouraging this effort. This entry is notable in that it's the first fan campaign ever to create a new show. It isn't just a fan board, this is about a fan campaign for a brand new show, something that has never been done before. And why should it bother any of you that there is an entry for this campaign?  Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Charmed Sons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 July 2006  (UTC)


 * Delete for above reasons. Well laid-out points Adam.  Also Anonymous2004, all I see on his page is a link to TCS.  Am I missing something?  And yes, of course he'd like to see the show resurrected...it would be a starring role.  --  Huntster  T • @ • C 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Save Everwood is also a fan campaign and they are also that "successful" or even more so, and it still does not have its own wiki article. I think having and wanting to keep this article (and to be honest, the whole campaign) is just being a busybody instead of doing something important or useful. Charmed is over, and there are plenty of other great shows to watch. Get over it and get a life. Liz85 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Liz85. God knows there are enough "make it up as you go along" dramas on the air. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "God knows there are enough "make it up as you go along" dramas on the air."
 * That has nothing to do with this article. This is a discussion about wether to keep the article, not about wether you support it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.105.253 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 July 2006  (UTC)


 * keep This is not a debate over a television show; it is a debate over a website. The article has made no infringements on copyright and is simply describing a legitimate campaign. Just because you don't think the campaign is "Useful" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Just because you think the show shouldn't be on the air gives you no grounds to delete the article. We have the support of the actos desired for the roles, and Kern is reviewing the possibility himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.235.17 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * keep Why shouldn't it be here? adamdoby has debated that it shouldn't be on wikipedia because it doesn't exist; TCS does, in fact, exist. Because we are not talking about an article about a TV show; we're talking about a website that does exist. And does it matter who started it? if someone would point out specifically what codes of Wikipedia this article has broken, we can debate the most relevant topics. Adamdobey has expressed strongly that he does not support this website; yet he has given no specifics besides his own opinion. If the information doesn't hold strong for you, then why not give us a chance to revamp it to include Wiki required info, instead of jumping straight to 'delete?' Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Charmed Sons Shondrea 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Shondrea


 * Keep-- None of your reasons cited for why this entry should be deleted hold any water. Everwood's campaigns efforts not having an entry does not mean they aren't entitled to one, only that no one has created one yet. This entry is not about a website, it's about a campaign effort by fans. This entry does not violate any rules of wikipedia for entries and should remain. And these comments about "getting a life"? Perhaps those posters should take their own advice and stop hassling other people's efforts or spending all their time obsessed with trying to convince people that Piper had a daughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 July 2006  (UTC)
 * This vote crossed out, as user had previously voted. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep  per above. GrapePie 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NPOV, unnotable, advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan database. prezzey 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Craigslist or MySpace. --FuriousFreddy 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. This is certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. — Mi ra  03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Its a brand new type of movement, the first of its kind. As such, and especially if it is successful, its history should be recorded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.216.53 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 August 2006  (UTC)
 * The problem with that statement is that just because it is a new type of movement, does not make it notable. There are a multitude of "new movements" that begin and end all the time, yet they are not recorded on the site.  Even if it becomes successful, it is uncertain whether it should still be included in the 'pedia.  Even the famed campaign to bring back the original Star Trek series for a third season doesn't have it's own article; rather, it is included as a few mentions here and there on the main TOS articles.  I don't see why this campaign should be any different.  If and when the series comes about, then the information can be included as a footnote.  --  Huntster  T • @ • C 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because other fan campaigns do not have an entry does not mean they shouldn't have one, only that no one has created one yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That really isn't a reasonable statement. To keep with the Star Trek theme I have going, historically, those TOS fans are fairly rabid about their favourite show.  I fully expected to find an article that had been written about the campaign, and was surprised to not find one.  In this instance, one of two things happened:  either those fans realised it didn't necessitate a separate article, or the article was created but later put through the ringer as this campaign is now.  Which one, I can't say.  --  Huntster  T • @ • C 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Compromise proposal : I'm quite sure I have seen this article a month before, it got deleted then. So before this devolves into yet another create-delete-create-delete bulls*** escapade, I propose to Delete this article, BUT: take the text presented here, shorten it to the more important parts(meaning: this is a fan campaign, there is a website, what efforts have been made up to now), and add it at the bottom of the Charmed main article under "Fan spin-off campaign".
 * Advantages:
 * The article, which might be not notably enough is gone.
 * The history of this campaign will be recorded and updated (since the Charmed main article is likely more frequented).
 * It's more topic oriented. The average Charmed fan will probably not have heard of The Charmed Sons, but if he/she has interest in a possible spin-off, he'll find the information where he/she will certainly look at (the Charmed main article).
 * If the campaign turns out to be nothing more of a dream, one simple edit, and it's gone.
 * If the campaign turns out to be more, and/or attracts more interest, then it warrants to be expanded into a whole article. Teshik 10:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is about a campaign to get a new television show created. The website and message board are just tools to that end. Adam Dobay's own argument of why it should be deleted states that this is a "Fan Movement". There is nothing in the guidelines of Wikipedia that states that a fan movement cannot be listed as an article. Therefore, all the points about why this should be deleted do not hold water. This entry has a right to be listed, moreso than the seventy different entries I've seen on Wikipedia discussing different aspects of Charmed. The campaign is notable and does exist, and the article talks about that. Fan campaigns have been notable stories, starting back with the Save Designing Women campaign in the 1980s, and recently the Save Angel, Save Veronica Mars and Save Everwood campaigns. This campaign is especially notable because it's for a tv show that does not exist yet, but fans are campaigning for it. It just seems some people are jealous because they cannot do what others are and are trying to discredit this campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 July 2006  (UTC)
 * Exactly. You can't have rules and regulations against something that is in it's own category. I have yet to even hear of another campaign, or even whispers of idea's of campaigns to get an entirely new TV show on the air. How can you apply rule for things that have been done before to something that, in it's right, is brand new? It hasn't been done before, there isn't any equal and fair etiquette to compare it too. Shondrea 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Shondrea
 * You're not helping your case by citing jealousy as our rationale. Danny Lilithborne 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Charmed Sons are Cheating the Vote!
 * Look what I found. On the Charmed Sons Message Board there's a whole thread for this wikipedia entry. Some interesting founds:
 * *User angel_23 just said: And I've voted under annonymous, and my name Shondrea. I don't know how they track members, but if I have two more e-mail addresses; think If i make two more names, they'd be able to track it? Or maybe Mom would let me use her conputer...whole dofferent IP...*wheels turning*
 * *She and the there-admin Brianna personally attacked wiki-user Zythe and wiki-user AdamDobay on this message board, confirming my thought that this whole issue is more like a personal issue for them and therefore they cannot think rationally and objectively.
 * *The admins are on this site and are contributing to the thread and they support this behaviour.
 * I think after the cheating the question whether to delete this article or not is no longer a question. Ever heard about fairplay?! And just because now I'm prepared for everything, here are the screencaps of their comments in case they delete the thread and pretend that it never existed. Confession of cheating, Bashing1, Bashing2, Bashing3. Liz85 06:16, 1 August 2006


 * Because deleting reasons such as "get a life" as SO much more legita,ate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.105.253 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I have encouraged members of The Charmed Sons campaign to vote, I have not encouraged anyone to vote multiple times. I am also not responsible for the actions of others that I did not encourage.
 * Furthermore, any comments made on another message board about AdamDobay or Zythe should have no bearing on whether this entry remains or goes. It is obvious it is a personal one for them, as many supporters of the campaign do not believe the character of Piper had a third child and that seems to be a sore spot for AdamDobay. As far as Zythe goes, he was banned from the Charmed Sons message board awhile back for trolling as well as banned twice under two different usernames from TWOP by the moderator on the Charmed board there for purposely antagonizing other posters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 August 2006  (UTC)


 * EDIT: Uch. This is exactly the kind of sh**stirring debate I tried to avoid.
 * Liz85, thank you for drawing our attention to this. I just told Shondrea to withdraw her anonymous vote, and told everyone else multiple voting is forbidden. We want to keep this article, but we want to do it the fair way.
 * As for the matter of Zythe versus Brittania and Shondrea, I don't know who kicked whose puppy in that one, but more importantly, I don't care. Leave the "I don't like you comments" to yourself, This was about whether the article merits Wikipedia status or not, not if you like each other or not. I hope we ALL can now return to an objective debate about this one. Teshik 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP - the Internet Fandom Community is a powerful one, and this is the first movement of its kind. As such, it should be allowed to remain. Besides - is it hurting anyone? There is no attempt to claim copyright, nor is there any attempt to make money from the original copyright. I don't see how this is a violation of rules, as this is the first article of its kind. I say keep it - regardless of what some immature fans may or may not have said on another website. The decision should be made purely on whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia - and not about whether someones feelings got hurt from a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.235.213 (talk • contribs) User's second edit.


 * Dear whoever. I never trolled on the Charmed Sons. I think I may have expressed that I felt it was an attempt that couldn't go anywhere, but I contributed to discussion and actually I wasn't aware I had been "banned", since I stopped frequenting both TCS and TWoP. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and verifiability is not optional. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:27, 2 August 2006 (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.