Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magic spells 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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of magic spells in Charmed[edit]

Delete, complete Fancruft, very much useless and possibly a copyvio (although not likely) Ned Scott 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft, WP:NOT a spellbook. Sandstein 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as fancruft or merge into Charmed --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm --DragonWR12LB 06:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Updating the entries to include episode references to fans can tell what episodes each entry came from (since some are from several) would make this a useful reference tool. Maelwys 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 17:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but only under the condition of replacing with a list that actually has some relevance to the series in question. The current list is more of a random nitpicking of spells used in Charmed. It would be useful to have a short article on the spells of Charmed that have relevance to the show's plot (ie. the spell that ignites the storyline, the truth spell that many times advances the plot, etc.). It is useless to just have a normal list. I am strongly against inserting this into the main Charmed article as we've spent a couple of months just trimming it down to the size it is now. AdamDobay 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ajdz 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per AdamDobay. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adam, and Maelwys

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.