Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childe (World of Darkness)
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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Merges and traswikis left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 14:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Childe (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
There are no references to demonstrate notability of this topic, and this is merely a recitation of plot and game information, resulting in a highly in-universe article. I don't think there's anything particularly redeeming in this article to save or merge into another one. The gist of the article is that "A childe is a child of a vampire". --Craw-daddy | T | 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation (World of Darkness)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Childe Currently just a stub there, so I'd expect content would be welcome. Being a former WoD gamer, I believe you won't find notability that isn't in-universe. -Verdatum (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and delete as in-universe game info. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep — This article has the potential to display some real-world fictional information (i.e. information about vampires) provided it is cleaned up. MuZemike (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in some appropriate place among the articles on this fictional universe. As usual in instances like this. DGG (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect DGG, what should be merged, and what's the target? There doesn't seem to be much out-of-universe material here to save, and a lot of the other articles on this fictional universe (in Category: World of Darkness and its subcategories) have similar notability problems. Merging this material will just shift the problem to the new target. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, where's the evidence of notability in terms of reliable independent references? Essays do nothing to demonstrate notability of this topic. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have begun revising the article in a manner that would include reliable independent references (just getting started as I want to see if I can find anything on creation/influence). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no references to demonstrate the notability of this topic, and this is simply a regurgitation of plot details with only in-universe information. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have begun adding reliable indepdent references with out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The single relevant ref in this article is...use of the term in a description of what Vampire: the Masquerade is. Thus, we can similarly describe it with a half-sentence in the main VTES article. No merge is needed to describe this non-notable topic which happens to mean roughly what it means in English. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that can be covered in other topics is a cause for a redirect without deletion as a worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No content worth merging. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two indicated references provide out of universe context that would be useful in other articles as well. No need to redlink this article per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The former ref only uses the term in passing, the latter ref is talking about an entirely different fictional work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then an alternate possibility would be to merge this article with Childe and redirect there and cover the various uses of the term or to Childe (vampire) (switch the current redirect situation) and focus on how the term is used in that context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No merge is necessary. You've added the only sourced claim to that article already, and as the original contributor of that sourced claim no GFDL concern arises. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outright deletion isn't necessary either as it's clearly a legitimate search term and there's no harm in keeping the edit history public. Actually we gain something from that when considering RfAs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you've found a reliable source that felt the need to comment on this subject other than in passing?
Filibuster elsewhere. You've stated that you don't feel that the article needs to be deleted. We get it. Stop repeating it unless you have something new to say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- That source and the other source can be used in an article on Childe (vampire), which is where this article originally came from. We could revise this article to be back about the general use of that term, move it back to Childe (vampire) and then redirect Childe (World of Darkness) to there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want to rewrite this article into an entirely different form, then merge it to an article that is related to that entirely different form? Why don't you just write a different article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hesitant to do any bold merging during an AfD. This article was originally Childe (vampire), which I think is a more sustainable article based on searches, however, someone moved it here and then redirected that article to this article. I am suggesting moving back to there, using the relevant information from this article in the rewrite and then redirecting this article to what was originally intended. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to write childe (vampire), go for it. Here's a link. But the single sourced or sourceable claim in this article is already in childe, so this isn't needed for any merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hesitant to do any bold merging during an AfD. This article was originally Childe (vampire), which I think is a more sustainable article based on searches, however, someone moved it here and then redirected that article to this article. I am suggesting moving back to there, using the relevant information from this article in the rewrite and then redirecting this article to what was originally intended. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want to rewrite this article into an entirely different form, then merge it to an article that is related to that entirely different form? Why don't you just write a different article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That source and the other source can be used in an article on Childe (vampire), which is where this article originally came from. We could revise this article to be back about the general use of that term, move it back to Childe (vampire) and then redirect Childe (World of Darkness) to there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you've found a reliable source that felt the need to comment on this subject other than in passing?
- Outright deletion isn't necessary either as it's clearly a legitimate search term and there's no harm in keeping the edit history public. Actually we gain something from that when considering RfAs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No merge is necessary. You've added the only sourced claim to that article already, and as the original contributor of that sourced claim no GFDL concern arises. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then an alternate possibility would be to merge this article with Childe and redirect there and cover the various uses of the term or to Childe (vampire) (switch the current redirect situation) and focus on how the term is used in that context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The former ref only uses the term in passing, the latter ref is talking about an entirely different fictional work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two indicated references provide out of universe context that would be useful in other articles as well. No need to redlink this article per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No content worth merging. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that can be covered in other topics is a cause for a redirect without deletion as a worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has an external reference and vampire/human hybrid is a notable theme in fiction. It is in-universe as written. I have not looked at the rest of the vampyre content in detail to determine where a merge could go but that may be a possibility. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have another article on other contexts, which, despite its brevity, already covers this subject in an appropriate level of detail.
Moreover, this article is not about vampire/human hybrids. The lack of critical examination of the article calls into doubt whether you examined the single in-passing reference critically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Aha. ok (1) I like the idea of a merge with that article, thankyou for pointing that out to me, and (2) don't make assumptions on how I look at things. I have a different yardsticks to you, and I generally listen more to folks who contribute something positive in content to the 'pedia. I'll unwatch this now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either the article is so misleading as to confuse, or you did not fully read the article. Neither speaks well to your argument to keep, as you're claiming that an unrelated concept may be notable.
What sourced or sourceable content would you want to merge? Other than in the lead, this article is composed entirely of game rules or setting detail for a defunct role-playing game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either the article is so misleading as to confuse, or you did not fully read the article. Neither speaks well to your argument to keep, as you're claiming that an unrelated concept may be notable.
- Aha. ok (1) I like the idea of a merge with that article, thankyou for pointing that out to me, and (2) don't make assumptions on how I look at things. I have a different yardsticks to you, and I generally listen more to folks who contribute something positive in content to the 'pedia. I'll unwatch this now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have another article on other contexts, which, despite its brevity, already covers this subject in an appropriate level of detail.
- 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.