Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warlock (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 JERRY talk contribs 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Warlock (Charmed)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't an episode of Charmed. WP:EPISODE isn't relevant here. Jay32183 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I completely read this wrong or something, guess I was a little too tired at the time I looked at this or something. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep List of minor characters from major show. Better this than each having their own article.  And merging into parent isn't reasonable given size of parent.  Hobit (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - important to the mythos of the show. It is sourced within the context of the show and per Hobit. Web Warlock (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is required that the article is sourced within the context of the real world per WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. A list of minor characters requires such sourcing as well, because the concept of minor characters from Charmed would need to be notable to justify a list of them. Jay32183 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Such sourcing clearly exists in main article. Having a minor character page for a major work has historically be the "right" thing to do (FICT 04/25/06), and I think deleting things that were "right" 8 months ago is a bit much. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, such a thing is Still policy, see WP:SS. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The main article does not clearly demonstrate the existence of "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject" for minor characters in Charmed. Jay32183 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. It demonstrates it for Charmed, and the Charmed article is already too long.  So the right thing ot do is to split it into multiple articles in a way that is useful and readable not one where each page can be shown to be notable.  The goal here is to provide information in a clear way and if splitting over multiple pages is that right way, it should be done.  WP:IAR Hobit (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Every individual article must show independent notability for its topic. Try reading WP:N before insisting something is notable. WP:SS does not allow you to make a page for a non-notable topic because it is related to a notable one, WP:NOTINHERITED. Jay32183 (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. The eleven references? They're all to en.wiki articles and thus can only be referring to a primary source - so we have no secondary sources here. --Jack Merridew 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Trim&) Merge with Magical beings in Charmed (article was just started). Warlocks (Charmed) is another victim of the old WP:FICT, which didn't encourage enough of secondary sources and summary style, but Charmed has now lost its fandom to longer keep their articles within (updated) wiki policies and guidelines. I presume it can establish notability with the other articles in a new merged state. – sgeureka t•c 11:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This worries me. As writing sytles/guidelines change will all articles that lose the interest of people be deleted/merged down to the bone.  If something _was_ notable, it is still notable per WP:N.  This is a back-door way making notability temporary and makes for a horrible precedent.  Hobit (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is, was it ever notable? I never watched the show and can't tell, and the article makes no claim of being so, having not a single secondary source. And the more time has passed since the show's cancelation, the less likely it becomes that someone establishes notability or that someone can properly judge real-world notability. What's happening/should happen is to cut down on the Plot and Original Research to give the article/topic a better real-world/in-universe balance as outlined in WP:WAF. Leaving the page history intact (by merging or redirecting) also enables editors to retrieve plot information when they wish to improve/expand this topic in an encyclopedic manner later (if they wish to do so). – sgeureka t•c 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Trim&) Merge with Magical beings in Charmed per sgeureka . Regarding the "does this make notability temporary": If it can't survive in time, this may just show we were wrong to ever think it was notable, and this is most likely the case here. Greswik (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the real-world notability of this character. The article fails WP:NOT and its in universe style fails WP:WAF. This article needs to be deleted and transwikied to an appropriate fansite. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect (or merge for consensus) to the page Magical beings in Charmed per sgeureka echoing the points made above. Lots of Charmedcruft that needs to be cleaned up. Eusebeus (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging may not solve the problem, since no reliable secondary sources have been provided for Magical beings in Charmed. Moving all the in-universe information to one place does not the fact that there is no real world context provided for the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could do it. I have a stack of books here on metaphysics, witchcraft and the like and quite a few of them mention Charmed and how it's mythology relates to real-world myths, the work of Margaret Murray and so on...I can easily provide 6-8 independent third party resources, some of them academic papers (cultural anthropology is an academic discipline after all as is media studies). I am curious to see where this merger is going first. BTW the earliest I can provide these would be Monday. Web Warlock (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * see the last few references for the Book of Shadows (Charmed), I added those and most of them are also valid for this article (most pagans have an issue, one way or the other with the term 'warlock') I also have a couple others besides those. Web Warlock (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources I will be adding. They deal with this very topic in varing detail. Buckland for example was very amused that a warlock character was named after him.
 * Buckland, Raymond (2002). The Witch Book. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press. ISBN 1578591147.
 * Illes, Judika (2005). The Element Encyclopedia of Witch Craft. Hammersmith, London: HarperElement. ISBN 000719293.
 * Genge, Ngaire (2000). The Book of Shadows : The Unofficial Charmed Companion. New York: Three Rivers Press – Random House. ISBN 0609806521.
 * Morrison, Dorothy (2001). The Craft: A Witch’s Book of Shadows. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications. ISBN 1567184464.
 * Aoli, Peg (2005), "Enchanté...Not", in Cruise, Jennifer, Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three (1st ed.), Benbella Books, November 1, 2005, pp. 240, ISBN 1932100601 Web Warlock (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Charmed, as without independent references it doesn't deserve it's own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If Charmed is too long, too bad. Find another way to split.  The concentration of original research here is too great.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Extremely doubtful secondary sources exist to demonstrate notability. The article is almost entirely plot summary and original research. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the sources are reliable. Addhoc (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (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.