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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assamite[edit]

Assamite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There are no independent references to demonstrate notability of this fictional vampire clan. Notability isn't inherited from Vampire:The Masquerade. The external links given are either officially sponsored by White Wolf (that makers of the game) or are fan sites (i.e. either not independent, or not considered reliable by WP standards). A redirect was tried by another editor that was reverted, a prod was removed, so that's why we're here. While not a reason for deletion, the page is also 99% in-universe material with possible original research (or at the very least, material not backed up with citations). --Craw-daddy | T | 10:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What further information do you want beyond that which is contained in Clans in Vampire: The Masquerade? I'd redirect all the pages there (with possibly some merger), but I predict I'd be reverted on these, as previous redirects and prods have been removed with nebulous claims of "notability" (which have yet to be demonstrated) or "importance". I don't like the WP:ALLORNOTHING claims that I have seen in other related AfDs and the removal of prods. If even one of these articles showed a shred of notability, I'd reconsider my current opinion that this one needs to be deleted. As is, they all appear to rely on sources that are directly from White Wolf and/or fansites (which aren't considered reliable sources according to WP standards). Given that, in their current status they belong on a White Wolf wikia. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why it's is improper to nominate one of them without nominating all of them? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of these related articles are of equal weight and equal notability. It's not my fault you didn't do your homework before you chose to nom one without digging a little deeper to see the big picture. Nom them as a group to keep things organized and I will support it, do it in a disorganized piecemeal fashion that creates twice the headache and ten times the work and I won't. Trusilver 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for assuming things about my course of action and knowledge of the situation, nice to know my work is appreciated. I'm well aware of the other articles, and if you'll check carefully yourself (i.e. dig a little deeper), you'll see that I was the one who placed most of the notability tags on these articles, some several months ago, none of which have been dealt with in the time since. And yes, as far as I can tell, they're all of equal notability, namely none. WP:ALLORNOTHING is equally valid here. The (non) existence of other articles has no bearing on the notability of the subject of this one, but apparently I'm speaking hot air here. Cheerio. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome!(See, I can wikilink too!)And you might have noticed that WP:ALLORNOTHING isn't policy. Trusilver 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know we can all wikilink. Maybe I should have just cited WP:V and delete all the uncited material. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:35, 16 October 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.
More