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 delete. Nandesuka (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines[edit]

Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There are no references to denote notability of the characters in this game. This is largely a plot summary and consists of some WP:GAMETRIVIA and game guide material (for example, detailing how interacting with some characters "opens up" side quests, or how others can help improve your in-game skills) that contravenes WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this article has already been discussed, and rejected. Why is it being brought up again? -FeralDruid (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the closing statement on the last AfD, you'll see that the lack of references was noted there, and as a result couldn't "in any good faith" be closed as a keep. There are still no references to demonstrate notability (as I stated in my deletion argument above). --Craw-daddy | T | 17:11, 13 August 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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per lack of reliable sources and original research. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide or a collection of trivia. No improvement whatsoever to the pointed-out lack of sourcing in the first AFD 8 months ago. Roi must have read a different article from the one being discussed here, in terms of lack of demonstrated notability and presence of original research , or has a different understanding of the use of those terms in Wikipedia than the consensus of most editors. Edison (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, a tremendous amount of reliable secondary sources and unoriginal reseach exists and the consensus of the majority of editors who create and work on these articles (i.e. rather than the couple who vote to delete in random AfDs) is that these sources are sufficient enough for inclusion. Plus the article meets Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A google search does not equal the establishment of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results in that search do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article does not have any reliable third-party sources to meet the WP:V or WP:GNG requirements. Google search only reveals trivial mentions of the characters, or unreliable sources. Keep voters and article authors have not discharged their WP:BURDEN. Randomran (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden is on those arguing to delete, i.e. making an overwhelming case that this article can never be verified, merged, or redirected to justify deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's incorrect, and I have attempted to clarify our policy to you repeatedly. From WP:BURDEN (a subsection of WP:VERIFIABILITY):

      The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

    • If the sources exist, the burden is on you to produce them and cite them properly. I'm not even asking for a citation here: just show me some specific sources, because none of us have found any. As of now, a WP:Search engine test is insufficient. We need to see multiple reliable third-party sources that actually provide sufficient coverage to write an article. If you continue to be uncooperative with our WP:V policy, I hope you'd at least have the courtesy to refrain from filibustering and stonewalling. Perhaps there is another editor who can actually produce the sources that none of us have been able to find, and "proof by assertion" may prevent other editors from seeing my unfulfilled request. Randomran (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The characters are specifically addressed in an interview as evidenced by the title of this IGN article and the subject of this video, and they are also referenced in out of universe context in [1], [2], [3], etc. Also, Icons of Horror and the Supernatural by S. T. Joshi discusses them on page 403. Surely, these sources can be used to write an article? And I see no reason why if I could find these sources, you couldn't instead of filibustering and stonewalling to get the article deleted here. Why not help look for sources that were relatively easy to find and help us to incorporate them into the article? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please assume good faith. I am not trying to stonewall or filibuster. I couldn't find sources, and the WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to keep the information to provide adequate sources. I saw the sources you have produced, and they do not verify the contents of the article:
          • The IGN article focuses on character design, and does not verify the major OR minor characters in this article.
          • The 1up article also focuses on character design, and does not verify the contents of this article.
          • The gamespy article focused on character design briefly, and then on combat. Still nothing that verifies the character information in this article.
          • The gamespot article covers character design, and its impact on a "seduction" mechanic.
        • None of these sources WP:VERIFY ANY information on ANY of the major/minor characters in this article. Do you see why a google search isn't enough? The actual contents of the sources matters. The sheer mention of the subject matter is not enough, and sometimes even misleading and off-topic. Randomran (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want me to assume good faith, then please do the same. They verify information on characters of Vampire: The Masquerade, i.e. some article on this topic. My suggestion is to use these sources to revise the article, but the subject as titled is notable enough while the article like practically all of our articles is an improveable work in progress. My sense from looking at Google books is that there's Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and it seems discourteous and unnecessary to expect volunteers to spring to action in five days. And I think we would accomplish more instead of having an AfD by using these sources to improve the article as best we can. Another approach is to search for individual characters mentioned in the article. Or [4]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can continue to assume good faith so long as you at least attempt to abide by our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. Not that I expect you to be infallible, but when someone points out your WP:BURDEN and you respond with proof by assertion, the discussion cannot move forward. I appreciate your effort to find sources, and hope you'll continue to look for sources in the future. Including this article, if you still believe that it's notable contrary to what several other editors have found.
              There is nothing discourteous about an AFD for notability issues, particularly when the article has been tagged for such issues since 2007 and efforts to find sources have failed. Assume good faith: we're trying to help maintain Wikipedia's high standards, and have given the article ample time to respond to the issues. The first step to assuming good faith would be to stop suggesting that the AFD process is inherently discourteous.
              The sources you have found cover a different but related topic. Preserving this article's contents, let alone its history, have no value. And it the notability of another topic neither helps nor harms this article. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • • My feeling is that this article meets the verifiability and notability guidelines based on the sources mentioned above and I see no persuasive reason to delete the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks for producing the sources either way. Others can now read them and decide for themselves if they actually verify the subject of this article. Randomran (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Happy to help. Have a pleasant night! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article's content is drawn entirely from game guides and the game itself. Primary sources can be used for verification but not to establish notability, and game guides likewise. The sources provided discuss game content, but do not discuss the characters. The difference is elementary if one considers that Lara Croft has an article separate from Tomb Raider - this is because there are sources which actually have Lara Croft herself as the subject. No non-gameguide sources of that type exist for this article for the simple reason that the characters therein simply aren't as notable. And if they're not notable, they are not article material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated above reliable non-game guide secondary sources exist for the topic as titled; please help to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to failure to cite reliable sources in contravention of the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources have been presented above and you can help us to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've provided a Google search and Randomran has already explained why that isn't enough. This is heading for WP:IDHT territory. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The results in the Google search are enough by any reasonable standard. We should be working together to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Extensive plot information and game guide material. Absolutely no sources to verify any content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the sources presented above; that statement is simply not true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No reliable sources (NOTE: I am not happy about the sources presented above - so don't lecture me about them). --Hank Pym (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid topic outside the scope of what is appropriate in the main article on the subject, necessitating a subarticle. Add references. Everyking (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. The present article is entirely plot summary, and as such inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you have independent sources on real-world aspects, then first the main article on the game should be expanded using these sources (it could really use some!), and only if this is not possible, breaking out a "subarticle" should be considered. (And even then, the concept of this subarticle should be radically different from what it is now.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fix, in this case, is to remove the inappropriate material. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be better to add the sources discussed above and even in the worst case scenario, I am not seeing any compelling reason we wouldn't merge and redirect without deletion to Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines#Characters. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no adequate assertion of notability to meet WP:NOTE. No need for a character list for a single game. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The notability * criterion only applied to the pages on the series taken all together, and I think it would be agreed that the series as a whole is notable. Everything else is a mater of editing. This is a split subpage to get the material of characters together without making the main page too long for some browsers. Demonstrating its separate notability is irrelevant, so the various deletion arguments above above are none of them based on policy and can be rejected in toto. There are only two questions 1/is the series important enough that a paragraph or two on each of the characters is necessary,and b/ where should the be put, on the single main article, on individual pages for each character, or on a combination page like this. Personally, I think this sort of combination page is the obvious compromise except for the truly most important series where there is sufficient information on the main characters to justify individual pages on each.I a therefore very troubled by those who want to delete compromise pages like this one. If they think our coverage of these topics is excessive--a tenable view, though one i do not agree with--they should support such ages and I would expect a chorus of enthusiastic keeps. Only if they ant to reduce the coverage of the topic to the bare minimum would they want to remove pages like this, so I assume its their objective. Its an objective which, like all other extreme positions, such as including only 1st place winners in the Olympics, that will be harmful to the encyclopedia. Its an extreme deletionism--the only thing left to do after that is to not cover fiction at all--I've heard that proposed also. (Just for the record, though not really relevant since this is not a stand alone article, 1/ plot and characters are different though related elements of fiction, and NOT PLOT means only what it says, that our overall coverage should not be about plot exclusively. 2/content can be drawn from primary and closely related secondary sources if it is not controversial 3/ there was a challenge for sources,and GRdC supplied them. That the nom had not found them indicated an inadequate and careless nomination in the first place. This does not however satisfy the challenger, who will presumably find some reason to challenge and source brought forward. very source brought as not being substantial enough. In short, this is the sort of good and appropriate combination article which we ought to have a central to our coverage of these topics. DGG (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I entirely disagree. There is no free pass for including plot summary material (rather than, as per WP:NOT#PLOT, sourced analysis) in arbitrary amounts in separate articles, once the main article passes WP:N. Rather, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, separate articles should only be created from a fully developed article, and if they separately meet WP:N. In the case at hand, already the main article, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, consists to a good deal of plot summary. A separate article just to add more of it is unwarranted. The fine distinction between "plot" and "characters" that you try to introduce is something that I cannot see in WP:NOT#PLOT; what we have here is plot summary, just in a reorganized form. And if we really want to boil it down to that level: The article does not serve the project's goal, to create an encyclopedia about the real world. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the topic is important to people in the real world it is consistent with the project's goal, otherwise over 5,000 people would not visit the article each month and numerous editors would not volunteer their time to build the article and argue to keep it across two AfDs now. A handful of editors unwilling to work on it does not trump that overwhelming reality that the community believes this article passes WP:N, is an acceptable spinoff or sub-article, and is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DGG sums it up well, it is a spinout list in effect, spun out due to length reasons. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 17 August 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.