Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Shadows (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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. "Cruft" is not a persuasive argument for deletion. Merging the article does not require deletion; it can be done independently from this AfD if there is consensus for it. While Web Warlock Rray is wrong to state that being unsourced is not a reason for deletion (it is), some sources at least have now been provided. Sandstein 07:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (fixed name in above statement, Sandstein 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Book of Shadows (Charmed)

Book of Shadows (Charmed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about a fictional book. There are no reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to mention it is a fictional book? That is not a reason to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So people understand the relevant policies and guidelines before reading the article. They should still read the article though. Jay32183 (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete more Charmed cruft. JuJube (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - with the main series' entry. That is already referenced, and primary sources are OK in detailing an element of the show even though not generally enough for a stand-alone article. ◄Zahakiel► 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. A major and important part of the series. I would be surprised if no one was able to find more sources. At least a merge is recommendable. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Importance to the plot is not relevant as Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft; no assertion of notability outside of the show; no secondary sources. •97198 talk 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: No reason to keep it, as it is not notable. If it plays a major role in the show, then merge. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Charmedcruft. Lankiveil (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - needs to be expanded. The charmed article is really long already and merging more into it would be probably be bad. I can understand someone wanting to create a page for this piece of it as Charmed is a pretty huge show and the book appeared in all 180 something episodes. Just about all the characters and episodes have been cataloged on wikipedia as well(which probably isn't all that encyclopedic), and "Book of Shadows" section is included in most of the Charmed episodes (see List of Charmed episodes). After the very least create a page for props and sets or charmed magic and merge and possibly it in so that term can have a wikilink to describe it. (I know it sounds like a fan, but i'm not; just forced to watch because of my sisters growing up). --ZacBowling^talk 07:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Without sources its importance to the plot is meaningless. There aren't sources for Charmed magic as a whole so creating a list would also be a bad idea. Jay32183 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not a fan of the series, but it seems to be of more than passing importance to the series.Balloonman (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Charmed. --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge. Keep, or merge into the series article.--Michig (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I know nothing about the series. However I cant see anything that shows a stand-alone article is needed. The information on here may well be worth keeping in the series article (Charmed). Hammer1980·^talk 11:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. If this book is really as important to the plot as ZacBowling states but is otherwise not real-world notable, then it deserves a paragraph or two somewhere, just not as a separate article. (Charmed editors will know of a better merge target than I.) – sgeureka ^t•c 13:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A bare mention at Book of Shadows (disambiguation) with a link to Charmed should be good enough. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge. Put this information in another charmed article. Definitely not notable enough for its own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • We can't delete and merge. If any content is merged the edit history must be hidden under a redirect for copyright reasons. When an article is deleted none of the history is kept. The main article is already bloated, so merging is probably a bad idea anyway. Jay32183 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as excessive, trivial fancruft. Biruitorul (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this fictional book has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. There is no good argument for merger as the article content fails WP:NOT#PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Being a fictional book is not a criterion for deletion. Sources can be added to the article any time. There is no deadline. Rray (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There are no sources to add. Unsourced content is subject to removal at any time, and should be removed aggressively, WP:PROVEIT. Jay32183 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are sources to add. The article has multiple references. And no, unsourced content should not be removed aggressively. It should be sourced aggressively. Rray (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No editor but you should be providing sources for the information you add. Do not add content without citing the source immediately. Jay32183 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Anyone can and should improve articles by adding sources. Of course, that requires a real contribution, which takes more work than nominating something for deletion or voting in a deletion discussion. Rray 14:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
          • No content should ever be added without sources and it is the responcibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources. Those wishing to remove material do not have to show that no sources exist, WP:PROVEIT. Users should never be offended that content gets nominated for deletion because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the reason for deletion is valid, such as being unsourced, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, then there really isn't anything to be complained about. This is not a vote, you have to have a point when declaring keep or delete. "You should have added sources instead of coming to AFD" is not a valid reason to keep an article, otherwise no article would get deleted. Wikipedia is not a fan site, however some other wiki may be. If that's what you're looking for, use that wiki. Jay32183 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
            • You should review the list of reasons for deletion. The reasons you cited in the nomination don't apply. Being a fictional book is not a reason for deletion. Being unsourced is also not a reason for deletion. (You need to understand how to distinguish between something that isn't sourced and something that cannot possibly be sourced.) You stated that reliable secondary sources do not exist. They do exist, and they have been added. I'm not complaining, I'm not offended, and I do have a point, which is simple: reliable sources exist and your reasons given for deletion were incorrect, so the article shouldn't be deleted. Rray 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Being a fictional book is not a reason for deletion, and I did not intend it as one. Being unsourced is the ultimate reason for deletion. To someone reading Wikipedia there is no difference between no sources listed and no sources existing. Content should never be added to Wikipedia without sources, and no Wikipedian should show that behavior any tolerance. The sources provided are not adequate. They do not show significant coverage. One-line mentions do not allow us to build proper articles. There is no significant coverage in mulitple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject beyond detail of the plot. That means the article gets deleted. This isn't Charmed Wiki. Jay32183 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The notability of this plot device is demonstrated by a real book (The Book of Shadows: The Unofficial Charmed Companion) about the TV series named after it, which includes much information about the fictional book; the authorized companion book The Book of Three, containing even more information about it; and Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three, a collection of essays which also provide coverage of the subject. DHowell (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Fancruft is not a reason to delete, it is an opinion it is an essay. As to there being "no sources to add" I seriously doubt the editor thoroughly exhausted all the research avenues. I say keep it on the grounds of Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion. Now speaking to the article itself, it is notable within the series AND (this is important) it is one of the most easily recognizable fictional versions of the real Wiccan Book of Shadows, of which this was named. For real world uses, there is enough of a demand to merit a market for full sized replicas[1], discussed by real world pagans at WitchVox, and mentioned in various books (of which I’ll get the references for) in books by Llewellyn Publications, a third party, independent of Charmed, publisher. Web Warlock (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I added two three independent, third-party sources, and one quasi-independent. I have at least three more to add. Web Warlock (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Still no significant coverage. A couple lines doesn't mean anything. Jay32183 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • According to your PRODAFD "There are no reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context." I have shown there are secondary sources and there is real world context. Your "significant" coverage is not the same as Wikipedia guidelines, it is your opinion. Web Warlock (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Significant coverage is required by both WP:N and WP:FICT. Also, this is AFD, not PROD. Jay32183 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
          • And I have provided that with critical reviews, cultural and popular impact in terms of the culture of wiccan representations in the media by giving examples what various pagans and critics has said about this issue. Working on the merchandise and even sales figures aspects now and still have a book and couple of scholarly articles to track down. Web Warlock (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
            • You have not shown significant coverage. You have shown minor mentions. To get its own article there needs to be significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Added another one. A critical review of the misuse of the Book of Shadows by a noted wiccan media critic in a peer reviewed book from a New York Times best selling author. Web Warlock (talk) 15:18, 29 November 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.