- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 18:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Vampire lifestyle
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vampire lifestyle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fanboiism at its worst. Is there any reason to have this in something that calls itself an encyclopedia. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 17:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The reason is that it's covered in multiple reliable sources, including journals, books and the Washington Post. Is there a problem with those sources? — Toughpigs ( talk) 15:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That’s a reason to have coverage, not justification for an article.
Qwirkle (
talk)
18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's a very different argument from the one you used in the nomination. Are you suggesting a merge? If so, what page are you suggesting as a merge target? —
Toughpigs (
talk)
20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. One is the cause, the other the symptom. Yeah, a merge might work, or a re-write might help, but what’s there now? TNT. Qwirkle ( talk) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's a very different argument from the one you used in the nomination. Are you suggesting a merge? If so, what page are you suggesting as a merge target? —
Toughpigs (
talk)
20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That’s a reason to have coverage, not justification for an article.
Qwirkle (
talk)
18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. on the basis of the sources, which give fully enough reliably sourced material for an article. . Unless there is some other reason for deletion, such as copyvio or promotionalism or BLP, meeting GNG is the basic justification for an article, unless there is insufficient material, to justify a separate article--in which-case we write a combination article with other very closely related topics."Fanbolism" would seem to translate as "I do't like it" which is not an acceptable reason for deletion. I sometimes think we're stuck on GNG to the exclusion of common sense importance, but the guidelines are otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
“Fanbolism" would seem to translate as "I do't like it"
. Again, not at all. The article is written by, for and about...enthusiasts, shall we say. It needs outside eyeballs...which, judging by its history, have never been quite enough to drag into being an acceptable shape, during the few times that got involved, usually around a call for deletion. Yes, blind adherence to guidelines can create problems, sometimes, so.... Qwirkle ( talk) 00:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons outlined above. Mgasparin ( talk) 06:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:GNG, article shows this having sources (note: i am not a "fan", boli or otherwise:)). Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep,Per above, Article is supported by reliable sources. Alex-h ( talk) 12:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not like it either, and it creeps me out, but it's notable as shown by the sourcing. Bearian ( talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Wow. I would honestly rather that this not exist, and I have some feelings about seeing it still here existing nearly 20 years down the line. But it's for sure a thing that has received a little study and a little reportage, even if mostly in a "this exists" sense. It needs to be pruned considerably, and there's a lot of utter nonsense in the further reading, and I'm not sure the ontology of folks' individual interpretations of this subculture is as well supported in secondary sources as the whole. And more than this, the article would be better if it concentrated on it the way the interested academics do - as an instance of a revived mythos, not the credulous descriptions that wholly unsuitable sources like Lupa's book are used to evidence. This article has been and ever will be a magnet for people 'cough' to write their first and second hand experiences and I am surprised it hasn't scored a semi-protect. FalconK ( talk) 07:17, 12 April 2020 (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.
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 18:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Vampire lifestyle
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vampire lifestyle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fanboiism at its worst. Is there any reason to have this in something that calls itself an encyclopedia. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 17:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The reason is that it's covered in multiple reliable sources, including journals, books and the Washington Post. Is there a problem with those sources? — Toughpigs ( talk) 15:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That’s a reason to have coverage, not justification for an article.
Qwirkle (
talk)
18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's a very different argument from the one you used in the nomination. Are you suggesting a merge? If so, what page are you suggesting as a merge target? —
Toughpigs (
talk)
20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. One is the cause, the other the symptom. Yeah, a merge might work, or a re-write might help, but what’s there now? TNT. Qwirkle ( talk) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's a very different argument from the one you used in the nomination. Are you suggesting a merge? If so, what page are you suggesting as a merge target? —
Toughpigs (
talk)
20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That’s a reason to have coverage, not justification for an article.
Qwirkle (
talk)
18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. on the basis of the sources, which give fully enough reliably sourced material for an article. . Unless there is some other reason for deletion, such as copyvio or promotionalism or BLP, meeting GNG is the basic justification for an article, unless there is insufficient material, to justify a separate article--in which-case we write a combination article with other very closely related topics."Fanbolism" would seem to translate as "I do't like it" which is not an acceptable reason for deletion. I sometimes think we're stuck on GNG to the exclusion of common sense importance, but the guidelines are otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
“Fanbolism" would seem to translate as "I do't like it"
. Again, not at all. The article is written by, for and about...enthusiasts, shall we say. It needs outside eyeballs...which, judging by its history, have never been quite enough to drag into being an acceptable shape, during the few times that got involved, usually around a call for deletion. Yes, blind adherence to guidelines can create problems, sometimes, so.... Qwirkle ( talk) 00:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons outlined above. Mgasparin ( talk) 06:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:GNG, article shows this having sources (note: i am not a "fan", boli or otherwise:)). Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep,Per above, Article is supported by reliable sources. Alex-h ( talk) 12:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not like it either, and it creeps me out, but it's notable as shown by the sourcing. Bearian ( talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Wow. I would honestly rather that this not exist, and I have some feelings about seeing it still here existing nearly 20 years down the line. But it's for sure a thing that has received a little study and a little reportage, even if mostly in a "this exists" sense. It needs to be pruned considerably, and there's a lot of utter nonsense in the further reading, and I'm not sure the ontology of folks' individual interpretations of this subculture is as well supported in secondary sources as the whole. And more than this, the article would be better if it concentrated on it the way the interested academics do - as an instance of a revived mythos, not the credulous descriptions that wholly unsuitable sources like Lupa's book are used to evidence. This article has been and ever will be a magnet for people 'cough' to write their first and second hand experiences and I am surprised it hasn't scored a semi-protect. FalconK ( talk) 07:17, 12 April 2020 (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.