Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary Fiends

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge and redirect to List of Charmed episodes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary Fiends

Imaginary Fiends (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an article on a single episode of the notable television program Charmed. It is typical of all of the articles in Category:Charmed episodes:

  • It contains no lede (most articles have a perfunctory lede, but a few are missing one altogether).
  • It consists primarily of plot summary and trivia, with very little (if any) real-world context.
  • The plot summary, lacking context, is useless to anyone not familiar with the program and with previous episodes.
  • It references zero sources, let alone reliable third-party sources.

This AfD applies only to this single article; per Template:AfD footer (multiple), "...for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." There was little point in going to the trouble of a mass nomination before seeing if deletion was feasible. Powers T 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One more note: most of these articles don't have talk pages, and those that do lack any WikiProject notices; I assume then that there is no WikiProject under whose jurisdiction these articles fall. If that is incorrect, I would be happy to notify the relevant WikiProject. Powers T 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT, very lacking in context, contains only trivia and plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:EPISODE. Contains nothing on critical reception or evidence of notability in the real world. Once trivia section and in-universe information is removed, the remaining infobox and plot summary do not really warrant an entire article. I would suggest expanding List of Charmed episodes into a separate list for each season and making each entry in the list more detailed (the information on guest stars, for example, is probably of some interest). --carelesshx talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Delete per nom. It's common practise to redirect non-notable episode articles, but since the articles are in such a poor state, there isn't much for possible later merging or transwikiing. Might as well be deleted. – sgeureka t•c 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and/or redirect to List of Charmed episodes, per WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles, which says the solution to articles like this is to "consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)" and to "avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." Missing a lead section is not a deletion reason, as such a problem can be fixed, amazingly enough, by adding a lead section! Lack of context is solved by merging with articles which provide that context (or by providing such context in the lead section). Lack of sources is solved by providing sources, which undoubtedly exist: The Book of Shadows: The Unofficial Charmed Companion, The Book of Three, Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three, would certainly be places to look for detailed information about the series, in addition to primary sources such as the show itself and DVD commentary. DHowell (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Charmed episodes. There looks to be a sentence or two worth merging but probably not more than that. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 14 December 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.