Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of vampire traits

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. — Jake Wartenberg 01:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of vampire traits

Comparison of vampire traits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but original research, personal essay in chart form, major violation of WP:NOT's prohibition against indiscriminate lists of information. No way to salvage this to meet our policies and no reason to try to do so that would serve any encyclopedic purpose. Prodded, prod was endorsed, then someone objected to force an AFD on it, so here we sit. DreamGuy (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This, by nature, is original research and will quickly become an unmaintainable mess as more and more plot junk and cruft are added from the numerous fictional universes that deal with vampires. There is no potential for meaningful encyclopedic expansion. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While interesting and useful to vampire fans, it is WP:Original research and belongs on a vampire website or blog not WP. Borock (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oh. Wow. Highly deletable collection of synthesis. --EEMIV (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Would love to see this transwiki'd Billbowery (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Could be transwiki'd or deleted, but in either case it simply doesn't belong on WP. This article could be used as an example for both WP:NOT and WP:OR. MacMed^talk_stalk 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Vampires are the subject of tons of scholarly research, and this is a relatively out of universe perspective. It could be make into a FL or FA if the right person cared enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Huh? A featured article??? As I pointed out on the talk page, this is a comparison of the fictional traits of fictional beings in an assortment of fictional universes. This is would make for poor tripod page circa 1999, pretty much the opposite of the content we should be striving for on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - There's lots of precedent for an index like this on Wikipedia. Like the other examples of these indexes, no conclusion is inferred, so it's not synthesis. Adding references (or adding them back) should be enough to move this out of original research space. If there's worries that this could become unmaintainable fancruft, the notability rules could be applied (which could mean pulling Blade and True Blood out of this list, since they've had a limited effect on the depiction of vampires in culture). --Skrapion (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean add them back? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • He added a bunch of unreliable sources (the Buffy Wikia for one) that somebody else removed. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I see. That's too bad. I added a real ref for the first fact. Vampire is an FA, so all the European vampire stuff can probably be grabbed from there. The movie stuff is debatable, and its inclusion should be based on what truly reliable sources can be found. I will say I know of a scholarly ref that could really cover vampires in Dungeons and Dragons, if we care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as I outlined on the talk page, several books on vampires discuss and compare at length the various attributes and vulnerabilities. I was lukewarm on the page when it appeared, but the idea has grown on me. I do apologise for not getting in sources last night as I fell asleep before getting 'round to it. The comparison between vampire traits in various media is notable in itself and I think makes for a valuable listy/graphic adjunct to the vampire article and its various daughter articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  I completely disagree with your last point. The concept of this article is exactly what we should be avoiding on Wikipedia. This is fancruft, pure and simple. Vampires might have been studied in scholarly sources, but this is going to degenerate into "Buffy vs Blade vs.. vs.. vs.." and I certainly don't want to start seeing Comparison of robots armaments in video games and fiction or Comparison of energy sources in collectible trading card games. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter if it has or will degrade. That's not what we base our deletes on. Also, Casliber took Vampire to FA, so he knows the sources. It sounds like you'd like to remove Buffy and Blade stuff. If you have reasons to think that will improve the article, go for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Doctorfluffy, you can disagree all you like. Articles like this one and this one add an out-of-universe context - namely Hays Code/censorship and colour vs B/W movies and how attributes are portrayed. I wouldn't take out those tow, and I'll add in twilight soon if someone else doesn't. Each potential article has to be taken on its merits. Doctorfluffy, not many themes could satisfy notability cirteria but this is in fact one of them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if we can rename it to something that will make the topic more scholarly? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Casliber, a section or two of prose in the main vampire article about differences in the portrayal of vampire abilities/traits treated in a formal, encyclopedic manner is one thing, but this is something else entirely. It's a bunch of charts where most of the possible sources are going to be DVD commentary and episode summaries. Even if my concerns about the degradation of the article prove false, we're going about this in the wrong direction. You're trying to find sources to support this mess instead of taking the available "good" sources and building the content. I still have my doubts there is enough scholarly material to support a topic like this, but you'd be more of an expert on that than me. There is truly an abundance of sources where the focus of the work is a comparison of vampire traits? Combining a bunch of sources that deal with vampire traits in each universe independently into anything is synthesis, even if you try to do it in an objective manner with charts and whatnot. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Did you see the sources thus far? No original synthesis is needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I've read them. There are not enough for a standalone article. The one about standardization of of vampire abilities in all fictional works is largely tongue in cheek. I don't know how much, if any, of it could be considered scholarly. The other talks about changes in the genre as a whole. Direct comparisons between the fictional universes (the topic of our article) are only used to support the authors' commentary on the overall trends in vampire portrayal. The focus of the work needs to match very closely the topic of the article or we stray into synthesis land. Neither of these support the article under consideration here. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Something like the first few sections Zombies in popular culture is what I think this concept should end up as. A discussion on the evolution of the portrayals and the associated fictional traits (as supported by sources similar to those you've already found), not a direct comparison between the various universes. Then throw that into the currently list-heavy Vampires in popular culture and call it a day. But that's entirely not what this article is so there's nothing to be salvaged from here and in turn it should be deleted outright. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, there's too much good info for anything other than a rename or a merge. Anyways, the article is probably safe at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Haha, "too much good info". Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Vampires are extremely notable, a fictional element which has been around for at least a thousand years. Listing the descriptions of them, how they changed, is a noteworthy topic. And there are references. Dream Focus 09:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  This article isn't about the differences in the portrayal over the years. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, actually, it is. The different major sources of information about vampires, which influenced how people thought of them, from ancient stories to modern day comic books and movies. Dream Focus 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  You're drawing conclusions that you're hoping the reader will make as well. The article has nothing about the evolution at all - it's some charts. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Transwiki to another site which is more suitable for this material. It's interesting, but it appears to constitute original research by synthesis. I'd hate to see it disappear completely, though. *** Crotalus *** 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oh hell no - delete, transwiki, get rid of it! Though each individual entry may be able to be sourced, you're citing primary sources for things like Bram Stoker's Dracula, and nonprimary sources for dubious notability books, TV series and other nonsources. This is a magnet for fancruft and the sources do not distinguish how vampires have changed over the years in different mediums and fictional universes. The individual sources discuss individual vampires, which are then synthesized on this page to create a massive document of original research. There's no way of deciding whose conception of a vampire should be included or removed, much of the "powers" will have to be interpreted or guessed at, and there's not going to be any reliable source that documents each one. Even if there was, the proper approach would be a paragraph or section in vampire discussing this in broad terms. The existence of other pages suggests those should be deleted as well, and is not an argument to keep this one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, weakly, and with regret. The information contained here might be suitable for merger, in text form, at Vampire literature#Traits of vampires in fiction, where citations to original sources would surely be appropriate. But this, I fear, is original research by synthesis. And besides, as Cecil Adams has observed, "to kill a vampire it is first necessary to determine its ethnic origin."[1] A list enabling you to recognize vampires by ethnicity would first be necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Heavily reliant on OR, unexplained/arbitrary selection criteria. Why only (western) European folklore, excluding Asian and other nonwestern cultures. Why Blade (the movie) rather than the whole Marvel Comics mythos? Why not Dark Shadows? Why isn't Polidori's version considered. Or Varney. Or Laurel Hamilton. Based on one editor's opinion of which legends/fictions are most significant, and therefore unencyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So long as we can cite these examples, I see no reason why not to add them here as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• I am almost leaning towards a speedy keep here as anytime the nonsense non-word "cruft" is evoked, we pretty much have to keep by default, but in any event, this example of verifiable unoriginal research does serve a valuable comparative and navigational purpose. I have already transwikied it to a couple of the wikis I am an admin at, but see a lot of potential in the suggestions to merge above per WP:PRESERVE. I am not, by contrast, seeing any pressing need to delete that trumps trying to merge or redirect first per WP:BEFORE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly subjective OR, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and WLU. Existing "comparison articles" tabulate highly quantifiable, measurement-based technical data, not subjective judgements (such as which vampires are more "alluring") based on one editor's opinion of which versions of legends and fictions are most significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the alluring column was largely inspired by other Wikipedia articles. ("Since the time of Bela Lugosi's Dracula (1931) the vampire, male or female, has usually been portrayed as an alluring sex symbol.", "They are usually quite attractive, even beautiful", "There is, however, a very small sub-genre, pioneered in Murnau's seminal Nosferatu (1922) in which the portrayal of the vampire is similar to the hideous creature of European folklore.") --Skrapion (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're going to find verifiable sources for the article to confirm which TV vampires are 'alluring' and which are not 'alluring', etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I have a bit more faith in our ability to find references than you do, given how often the subject of the romanticization of vampires is discussed, and how nobody has challenged the statements I've listed above. In any case, if that's a problem, then the proper solution is to remove — or add citationneeded tags to — columns which are subjective, rather than delete the whole article. --Skrapion (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It's not really OR, because it comes from other source material. It isn't really synthesis, because it isn't drawing a conclusion. It is just drawing in several lists in one composite article and making tables. This wouldn't be OR or SYN if it was several independent articles "List of vampire traits in True Blood", "List of vampire traits in Bram Stoker", etc. Combining these disparate lists to one article is fine. In fact, I bet if there were seven different "List of vampire traits in Fiction Xy" there would be repeated calls to merge them from some quarters. There is ample precedent for comparison articles tabulating existing data. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Delete as many have said, it's OR and full of poorly defined and subjective terms. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is within the Wikipedia's goal of incorporating elements of specialized encyclopedias. Deletion is an option for articles which cannot be improved; this article can be improved. Rray (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  How so? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  MOre refs of course, and we gotta add Twilight all over the place :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, Casliber, but I'd like to hear Rray's answer. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not OR when you have references. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

*Delete, people have to get some perspective, vampires are not even real... some of the info could be compressed and added to Vampire, but probably not, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • So... this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote? What is the policy basis for deletion? Since you add that the information could be provided elsewhere, it isn't the OR issue that others are objecting to. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

***Whaaa? I shouldn't have said the above really, I just didn't want to say exactly the same as the others. Basically, I don't think this is a notable enough subject to warrent it's own article. It may be written from an out-of-universe perspective (mainly), but even if vampires themselves are extremely notable, I don't think a collection of fictional traits of fictional beings in several fictional universes is encyclopedic at all. I believe transwikification would be the best option, as it undeniably has potential, but isn't suitable for a general interest encyclopedia, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Know what? I hate to change, I know how some frown upon it, but I'm gonna say Keep now. SchmuckyTheCat's short comment at the current bottom of the page has changed my mind. Far too long to even compress anyway. I still think it's unencyclopedic, but for some reason I now believe it to be notable-er. Who cares what I think anyway. Not like I'm going to change the outcome of this discussion. And I don't know how the hell people think it's OR. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Despite suffering existential trauma from Spongefrog's shocking revelation that vampires are not real, I still think the only bad thing about this article is the 'orrible red and green Yes-No template. Anarchangel (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete quick fast and in a hurry - pure WP:OR that violates both WP:V and WP:NOT. Throwing out some references to support individual elements does not make it anything else. Wikipedia is not for editorial self-publication in prose or chart form. Vampires as a topic has an article and is notable, this is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not OR when you have references which make wholesale comparisons. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Assembling information sourceable to the primary works in an obvious way is not the least OR , just the routine way to write encyclopedia articles. Expandable, improbable, verifiable content, notable topic. Tis is thesort of topic Wikipediadoes very well, and there;'s no reason we should be ashamed of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Presenting properly sourced information in a comparative table does not violate WP:SYNTH, regardless of whether you're comparing hardware specs or vampire traits. (The precedent for this goes far, far beyond just the "Comparison of X" articles. For instance, if you browse through featured lists, you'll find many comparative tables combining information from different sources. This is perfectly appropriate: while the information may be organized in a novel way - something true of all Wikipedia articles to some extent - there are no novel conclusions being drawn.) Editors working on this article do need to take care to avoid original research (particularly inferential leaps from primary sources), but there's nothing preventing it from being an OR-free article.--Chris Johnson (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have read a bit of scholarship on vampires and it certainly does compare vampires and their traits across time. I would hope that eventually this chart would include more types of vampires and better sources, but I see nothing inherently problematic about this article. The research has already been done by others (see, for example, The Vampire in Nineteenth-Century English Literature), which means that the article is not OR, and it is certainly a notable topic, as entire books have been written on the topic. Awadewit (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Awadewit and Casliber. Nathan ^T 22:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as maintainable, discriminate, verifiable, encyclopedic, well-defined, objective, unoriginal research that is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Moreover, calling something "cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion. I am, however, not opposed to it being merged as well and in turn redirected with edit history intact, but clearly no reason to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Awa, Casliber, DGG etc. It's not synthesis to list items referenced to different sources in a comparative table; no synthetic analysis is made that I could see. Much too long to merge. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Indifferent keep. Editors have claimed that the available sources justify and support such an article, and I believe them. Additionally, humanities topics are always easier to accuse of "synthesis", a weakness of Wikipedia that seems rooted in the subjectivity of humanities topics vs. "scientific" ones. Such a claim fails to recognize that humanities articles can legitimately summarize/constrast/compare scholarly views from reliable sources. Every list of "facts" of Wikipedia is a synthesis, but no one claims "synthesis" when they see "facts". Whether you are compiling lists of "facts" or compiling critical, inherently subjective views in the humanities using reliable sources, you are engaging in analogous activities with respect to the field of study. Outriggr (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an extreme case of original research. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How so when the subject is verifiable in reliable sources? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Accusations of "original research" are off-base because the article doesn't contain any facts that are not present in the sources. It isn't trying to promote an original point of view either. Sounds like another "I don't like lists in pop-culture topics" debate. But it is a well-organized and well-sourced one, and I feel it adds encyclopedic value. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There are hundreds of books which detail and analyse the traits of vampires in both reality and fiction. These include the The Vampire Encyclopedia, Science of Vampires and The Natural History of Vampires for example. The topic is therefore hugely notable and there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The many sources for vampire powers are great for the main Vampire and Vampires in fiction article, but their existance does not mandate the need for this list. There are 10,000s of fictional works that include vampires - this list is just the start of a huge, unworkable cruftlist, imo. Also, much of it remains unsources. showing that while some vampire incarnations are sourcable, many are not. If this small start cannot be sourced, i do not see how a comprehensive list ever could be. Tabulated comparison article are only suitable for documenting objective facts, not ever changing fictional attibutes.YobMod 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Do note that Vampires in fiction is a redlink, the argument that this material might properly belong there is a redlinkherring. And the different traits of vampires in different fictional settings are very much objective and sourcable facts. You can answer the question, "Do vampires in True Blood see themselves in the mirror?" as a yes or no question. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Maybe it's because Vampires exist only in fiction. Sorry, ignore that, I just had to say it. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (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.