Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clan (World of Darkness)
- 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 redirect to World of Darkness. If there is a better target feel free to change the redirect. If there is something to merge, the history is still there. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clan (World of Darkness)[edit]
- Clan (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is basically redundant to Clans and Bloodlines in Vampire: The Masquerade and Clans and Bloodlines in Vampire: The Requiem. Ignoring that, it doesn't really give much to assert its notability. To be honest, neither of the other articles really do that anyway, but generally lists (or list-like articles, in their cases) are given a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Plus, I think those two articles probably have more benefits to being merged if we were to have away with them, and I can see them being used as redirects. This, I feel would be less used.
I did recently go on a redirecting spree with the main 13 Masquerade clans. I feel like pointing this out in case anyone thinks I've just been personally offended by the pages and want to delete them all; for the record, I haven't and I don't. – Bellum (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – Bellum (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge anything that is useful - I really feel AfD is not the right vehicle for this. It seems like it would be a shoo-in for a merge as you are fundamentally correct that it is redundant. Probably would have been best handled as a merge discussion of the affected pages before bringing it to AfD. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Where exactly will we redirect it to? I mean, you can't exactly go with Masquerade or Requiem, so you'd probably just put it to World of Darkness; I don't think that's particularly useful. As for merging, I don't think there's much content that isn't already on the other pages, and there aren't really any unifying concepts about Requiem and Masquerade clans. Sure, they're both roughly like WoD classes and some of them have the same name, but Requiem adds sects to create a sort of X/Y axis, while Masquerade's whole political stuff revolves around them. – Bellum (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually don't rightly know; my exposure to WoD and the differences between the two is limited. Which only contributes to my feeling that any reorganization would be best handled as merge discussions on the talk pages by editors more familiar with the subject matter. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. However, given all the recent deletions, I don't think anything would really suit it as a merge now. There are some basic things that can be put into a "the RPG is played as such" section in the pages for Requiem and Masquerade, but not much else. On the differences between the two: they're basically two different games. The basic idea (you have clans, which are classes, and you have three different Disciplines) are the same, but the games don't have enough in common to really justify making one group article.
The ones in Masquerade, I'd say, are probably the only ones that have any chance of notability, but since I couldn't find any sources neither of the games' clans could reach our standards (because I've found, like, no sources).
In all honesty, if this is kept, it will just redirect to World of Darkness -- and that's not really going to cover the subject in any length, so it's not a great redirect. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. However, given all the recent deletions, I don't think anything would really suit it as a merge now. There are some basic things that can be put into a "the RPG is played as such" section in the pages for Requiem and Masquerade, but not much else. On the differences between the two: they're basically two different games. The basic idea (you have clans, which are classes, and you have three different Disciplines) are the same, but the games don't have enough in common to really justify making one group article.
- I actually don't rightly know; my exposure to WoD and the differences between the two is limited. Which only contributes to my feeling that any reorganization would be best handled as merge discussions on the talk pages by editors more familiar with the subject matter. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Where exactly will we redirect it to? I mean, you can't exactly go with Masquerade or Requiem, so you'd probably just put it to World of Darkness; I don't think that's particularly useful. As for merging, I don't think there's much content that isn't already on the other pages, and there aren't really any unifying concepts about Requiem and Masquerade clans. Sure, they're both roughly like WoD classes and some of them have the same name, but Requiem adds sects to create a sort of X/Y axis, while Masquerade's whole political stuff revolves around them. – Bellum (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge/redirect/whatever. There is no evidence that this is meets our notability criteria, so it should not exist as a standalone article. I don't care what else happens to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See also related group nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyles (World of Darkness). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.