Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbat (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 keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sabbat (World of Darkness)[edit]
- Sabbat (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable fictional clan of vampires. Contested prod. Prod removed with no other change to the article, nor explanation on the talk page other than "I object to the deletion". --Craw-daddy | T | 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Major element of a hugely notable franchize. While it it is true that notability is not inherited, major plot elements of highly notable works have historically found a place in Wikipedia, if not as stand-alone articles then certainly as sections of other entries. In this case, as with the recent D&D related AfDs, the notability of this article seems to have passed the threshold established by consensus. ◄Zahakiel► 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What consensus exactly? As is, this certainly fails the WP:PLOT and/or WP:WAF guidelines and there's no references outside of original source material. My comment on the similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconnu (World of Darkness) applies here too. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've expressed some lack of familiarity with these topics on your comment on the AfD for Inoccu, so you probably haven't been following the AfDs of other RPG-related discussions such as a great many of them on D&D related elements and creatures. The overwhelming majority of AfDs resulted in Keeps, or at least Merges; I'm talking about that consensus, lack of secondary sources is generally not considered a reason for deletion on its own if the article is on a major element of a very notable, highly referenced work. This is a somewhat controversial area, as you'll quickly see if you read the talk page for WP:FICTION and related pages, but having been a part of a number of said AfDs, I'm just letting you know how they've gone. This is not, of course, saying that this article will definitely survive this attempt at deletion, but based upon how similar articles have been dealt with, I think it should. The reasons that apply there apply here also. ◄Zahakiel► 00:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm quite familiar with what's been going on with the D&D pages. While I don't necessarily agree with how that's being handled, some of it is merited and worthwhile. Upon further looking, I agree that the Book of Nod seems to have some references available, but obviously needs to be dealt with. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've expressed some lack of familiarity with these topics on your comment on the AfD for Inoccu, so you probably haven't been following the AfDs of other RPG-related discussions such as a great many of them on D&D related elements and creatures. The overwhelming majority of AfDs resulted in Keeps, or at least Merges; I'm talking about that consensus, lack of secondary sources is generally not considered a reason for deletion on its own if the article is on a major element of a very notable, highly referenced work. This is a somewhat controversial area, as you'll quickly see if you read the talk page for WP:FICTION and related pages, but having been a part of a number of said AfDs, I'm just letting you know how they've gone. This is not, of course, saying that this article will definitely survive this attempt at deletion, but based upon how similar articles have been dealt with, I think it should. The reasons that apply there apply here also. ◄Zahakiel► 00:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at least Merge under Sects in Vampire the Masquerade or something similar. The information found in this article (and e.g. Inconnu (World of Darkness), Anarchs, Black Hand (World of Darkness) and Camarilla (World of Darkness)) should be kept as they are all major factions in a major RPG world. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So where's the references that would demonstrate notability of each of these factions? The articles have been in existence for about a year and a half (for most of them anyway I think), yet no references have been added outside of the original source material, or a trivial one. Just because V:TM is a major RPG world, that doesn't mean that each of the vampiric sects, secret rituals, and other things are notable. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if any of these are used in any non-WoD material, except fan fiction and reviews. But I guess that goes with many of the other RPG materials. As for the sources from the game material, given time I could extract some references and generally clean up the articles, but it will take a lot of time, as I'm already quite busy with other projects. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at least Merge under Sects in Vampire the Masquerade or something similar. I agree with Jhattara. The infor mation on the Anarchs, Camerilla, & the Sabbat should either be kept, and edited or merged together as they are very important to the Old World of Darkness.Noremon (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the various vampires. The usual compromise. why not do these things away from AfD. DGG (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (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.