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. I appreciate that A Nobody has at least made an attempt to improve this article, but unfortunately - as many editors have pointed out below - it's turned into what is effectively a random collection of information about topics that in some cases are only tangentally connected, and about which we already have perfectly serviceable articles. In other words, a multiple content fork, and thus redundant. Black Kite 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (Vampire Folk lore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

An in-universe, unreferenced narrative about supposedly legendary vampires. Delete as unencyclopedic. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To judge by the mention of Maya in the article, this would seem to be about the creatures in the Night World series of books. I think that the topic is sufficiently treated at Night World#Vampires (along with a mention at Greek mythology in popular culture#Lamia); and since nothing in this article is sourced, none of it is suitable for a merger to the main article. There's certainly nothing of authentic folklore here. Deor (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly somebody's personal essay. Re-affirming Delete after article updates. Fences and Windows' comment below perfectly explains the faults with this rewrite and why the article is still completely unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon actually looking for sources, I have found that "Lamia" is indeed mentioned in books at some length, such as here, here, etc. Clearly improvable in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article at Lamia (mythology). This article isn't about what your sources are talking about. Extremely sincerely, Deor (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine any reason (because none exists) why we would not at worst redirect then to the locations mentioned above. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that no one would type that sequence of characters into the search box. Capiche? Deor (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who created or worked on the article apparently would. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one person. The others who worked on the article most probably found it through NPP, CSD, ... We don't keep redirects for improbable search terms. Fram (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete mergeable and verifiable topics either per WP:PRESERVE and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable fictional topic and unlikely search term. Drawn Some (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when it concerns a notable topic from Greek myth that is indeed a likely search term. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If, by that, you mean "an essay suggests that saying 'non-notable' on its own, which Drawn Some did not do, is considered a weak argument", then I'd agree wholeheartedly. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*strong keep per A Nobody's research showing this article is notableIkip (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, do you ever say 'Keep' without 'Strong'?? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obvious merge into Lamia (mythology) where it would form a good section on the vampire aspects of the myth. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please detail what content you think should be merged. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as the Colonel suggests. But Drawn Some is correct that the NightWorld material is of inappropriate length either here or in the merged article, though it should be mentioned in the appropriate section of the Greek Mythology ip article. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into Lamia (mythology). connected material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no content that adds to the encyclopedia. We already have good articles on the Keats poem and the mythology, which don't need polluting with unrelated content, and we have a section for mentions of Lamia in popular culture here:Greek mythology in popular culture#Lamia. Details of the use of Lamia in Night World are already well covered in that article. No redirect, as the title is not a plausible search. Fences&Windows 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pernom, percruft. This is a heap of plot regurgitation from whatever young-adult junk-book; unencyclopædic. And the rescue effort amounts to a disruptive attempt to fork material from Lamia (mythology) (a fine looking article that will not benefit from anything here) for the purpose of keeping *everything*. Nods at arguments by R'n'B, Deor, Fences and windows. Do *not* redirect this ludicrous title; 'Folk lore' is one word. Moar sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is now about how a type of vampire(which is a fictional entity) has been portrayed throughout the ages, starting with thousands of years ago. The original article was about something else, just one aspect of a modern series. It now list stories about Lamia through many sources, from thousands of years ago to the present. Dream Focus 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The rewrite by A Nobody is well-meaning but misguided. It now melds together three things, Lamia as defined by the Greeks, Lamia from Keats, and Lamia in Night World, which don't belong together. We already have articles on those three things, as I've explained, and if we want readers to navigate between the concepts we use wikilinks and disambiguation page like Lamia rather than creating content forks. There is no purpose served to the reader by the existence of this article; I hate deletionism too, but keeping this article does not help improve the encyclopedia one iota. Fences&Windows 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this assessment completely. We already have articles on all the individual meanings of Lamia and they are easy to find via the DAB page. This page serves absolutely no purpose. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to areas suggested above. The reasons to delete no longer apply:

  Response to delete vote 1: Article is no longer entirely in-universe, nor unreferenced. Moreover, as the topic appears in numerous published encyclopedias and in the specific context of vampire folklore, it cannot properly be called “unencyclopedic” (a term that my spell check underlines in red as not a real word anyway).

  Response to delete vote 2: Article is no longer only about Night World and because it is now expanded and sourced actually can be merged to the indicated areas of other coverage, which could indeed benefit from additional sourced material.

  Response to delete vote 3: Regardless of how the article started out, it is now written and revised by multiple editors and thus not a “personal essay” by any stretch of the phrase. Moreover, indiscriminately saying to delete everything and being closed minded to never argue to keep are not compelling here.

  Response to delete vote 4: Possible retaliation for an ANI thread I started that gained consensus about this user following another around, but in any event, a concept that appears in the work of major authors and is analyzed and discussed in published books cannot be deemed “non-notable” by even the most restrictive definitions of this subjective and elitist concept that we have seen on Wikipedia. And given that searching for Lamia with vampire and folklore gets many hits on Google News even and that someone saw fit to create an article, it is indeed a likely search term.

  Response to delete vote 5: Again, article has been revised dramatically since this comment and now has mergeable content. Plus, see above for reasons to redirect at worst.

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge - Article has plenty of references, so I don't see any valid deletion reason. Rray (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rray, did you even read my comments? My argument for deletion doesn't rest on notability or sources. A Nobody, if you have found new sources that other articles lack, go and add them in to the appropriate part of those articles; that doesn't require a merge! Trying to salvage this page to avoid deletion by forcing a merge creates a complete dog's dinner. Vaguely calling for a merge is no help. Precisely what material should be merged, to which articles, and how? To which article should this redirect? Lamia? How is "Lamia (Vampire folklore)" even a useful redirect? This kind of indiscriminate inclusionism is just as unhelpful as indiscriminate deletionism. Sometimes material is redundant and not worth keeping - we should put this article out of its misery. Fences&Windows 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional reasons to keep:

• There is currently something of a vampire craze thanks to Twilight and True Blood. As such, it is entirely reasonable that our readers will come here looking for all sorts of information on vampires and thus someone who comes across "Lamia" in the context of vampires in any of the various works of fiction is entirely possible to do a search for "Lamia vampire" or "Lamia (vampire)" or in this case "Lamia (vampire folklore)" rather than "Lamia (mythology)". Given that an editor created the page with such a name further proves that being the case.
• Per WP:PRESERVE, the article is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio. Rather, it concerns a notable subject and features mergeable information verified through reliable sources. There is therefore no pressing need in deleting its edit history. By contrast, there is no harm in humoring those who do find this cited information useful in keeping it for the sake of either future expansion or at least out of the convenience of a redirect.
• Our first pillar is that we are not merely a general encyclopedia, but also a specialized one. SEVERAL specialized encyclopedias on folklore and vampires contain entries on "Lamia", i.e. Lamia is deemed encyclopedic by real world publishers specifically in the context of vampires and folklores. The paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit thus can at least be consistent with multiple print encyclopedias as confirmed on Google Books.
• The other articles cited above merely focus on certain aspects on this topic, specifically in Greek myth, in Romantic poetry, and in Night World. The disambugation page just contains links. This article, by contrast charts the development of the concept from ancient to Medieval to early modern and to Modern times. Think of the individual articles or sections of articles as say articles covering a battle or specific period in history, whereas this article provides the overview of the whole war and puts the big picture in context. Those links on the disambugation page are the trees. This article is the forest. I can probably come up with some more metaphors, but you get the idea!
• I have thus far revised this article using only some of the sources found on Google Books; I am beyond convinced that greater potential exists here and given all the articles currently nominated for deletion that I could potentially help with, I would not make such a strong case for this one were I not absolutely certain that further potential exists for this concept independent of the potential merge locations (I have been reading and researching vampires since elementary school...no kidding).
• As for potential merges, here is a start, but again, this topic provides the general overview for how the concept of Lamia within vampiric folklore evolved from Ancient Greece into later civilizations and as used in current works of fiction. It is convenient for readers to get a sense of these developments as a whole for at least comparative purposes in one article with brief summaries of each change that to play games sifting through multiple articles.

• Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge Taking a look at the article as first nominated for deletion, I can understand the nominator's valid concerns. However, through some laudable work by interested editors, the noms concerns have been addressed and Wikipedia now has an encyclopedic and well-sourced article on a valid topic... mythical, legendary, or not. The mythos of Vampire has been long seen in culture all over the world... and it is only within the last 150 years or so when most of the world's cultures have accepted Vampire as fictional and not actual. The topic is suitable for inclusion, and at the very least might be considered for merging to Vampire. However, I believe the article now has the sttrength to stand on its own legs. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Take a look at Fence and Windows' comment above you a bit. There are already articles for all the usages contained in this article. This sloppy cleanup effort did nothing more than create a pointless content fork. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 22:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Then might it not make more sense to have the bits and pieces which are spread around in other articles together in one place? Or merged into one article? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, of course not. You're an experienced editor - you know we use DAB pages and one already exists for this topic. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 16:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You're an experienced editor yourself, thank you. For me it's a bit tough to deal in absolutes when every guideline page has instructions that encourage the careful consideration of exceptions that could serve to improve the project. In looking at the existing DAB page... I see links to Lamia (mythology)... a Greek mythological female creature, Lamia of Athens... a courtesan, Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons).... a magical beast in Dungeons & Dragons, Lamia (city)... a city in Greece, Lamia (animal)... a mouse-like animal in New Guinea, Lamia (poem)... a poem by John Keats, Lamia (Stardust)... the main antagonist in the 2007 fantasy film Stardust played by Michelle Pfeiffer, and a link to a Lamia section in Cappadocian (World_of_Darkness). With respects, the DAB page does not take me to articles that cover Lamia in vampire folklore... nor any that do so with the depth that does this one. I believe we now have coherent and sourced content that could be merged to sections in Vampire folklore by region, with a redirect set after the merge of informations. Wouldn't you think a careful merge of some of the content to a article where such content has context and notability make sense? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing to merge. This is a content fork. It's duplicate data. This is not a likely search term. Deletion is the best. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Then we can perhaps agree to disagree. I've read Vampire folklore by region and the improved Lamia (Vampire Folk lore). Their is sourced information in 'Lamia (Vampire Folk lore)' that is not duplicative of information in 'Vampire folklore by region', and that would further improve 'Vampire folklore by region' by a careful merge. Personally, I think that that is where it best serves the project. Thanks much, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What would have best served the project would have been A Nobody improving the other articles on Lamia and vampire folklore instead of trying to force a keep by inappropriately expanding this article then merging content from it. Expanding an article simply in order to merge the new content elsewhere is perverse, and looks like gaming the system. Fences&Windows 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be good if we were all elsewhere improving other articles, as AfDs too often involve time and effort that might be used elsewhere... and yes, I fully expect that this article will likely not exist a week from now. But as I wrote, I read the two and there is now some unique sourced information in this one that is not duplicative of information elsewhere. Sure, it would have accomplished the same thing more efficiently to have added the expanded material and its sourcing to other articles from the outset, thus eleviating any concerns or qualms about GFDL. But he did try to save this one first... and it is only the unique and non-duplicative informations that need merging. (modifying my keep opinion above to a merge) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the lack of non-trivial coverage of this specific topic. There's plenty about lamia(s) and vampires, but this article is a hodgepodge of... stuff that happens to mix the two together. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be honest. Published books that specifically address Lamia in the context of vampirer folklore are indeed non-trivial coverage this specific topic. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, none of the sources for this article address lamia in the context of vampire folklore in a non-trivial way. Several of them refer to the Lamia from Greek mythology (which already has an article) as having vampire-like characteristics, and speculate at that Lamia being a conceptually predecessor to vampires. The Graham Anderson book suggests in a passing parenthetical remark that a lamia is a vampire, but this is in a book about Philostratus, in a chapter about Philostratus' writing about Apollonius, in a section discussing elements of confusion and misunderstanding; it's a trivial mention which, while possibly worth mentioning in such an article, is clearly insufficient to establish the notability of lamia-as-vampire. The Keats poem (which already has an article) goes back to the Lamia of Greek myth, and is again mentioned as being vampire-like; saying that something is "like" something else implies that, although similar, it is not that thing. Then there is a very long, largely unsourced section on lamia as born vampires within the Night World books. The sourced portion of this is covered, with the same sources used, at Night World#Vampires. cmadler (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit down and Merge. Merge to Lamia_(mythology) article. Appears to be some encyclopedic, well-sourced info here. Artemis84 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Fences and windows and Stifle. A mishmash of information about vampires that happen to be named Lamia. Borderline WP:SYN. Tim Song (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - There's some good info here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fences & Windows. cmadler (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rationale: This deals with three separate things. It would be like putting 22 different Lexingtons into a single article called Lexington (US towns) because they're all towns in the US and they all have the same name. It would be silly in that case, and it is silly in this case. cmadler (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have looked at the sources in the article, and it is clear that they refer to the mythological Lamia. Attempting to distinguish between Lamia (mythology) and Lamia (Vampire Folk lore) is to draw a false and misleading picture of the situation. The Wikipedia policy being violated here is No original research. Abductive (reasoning) 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, its hard to see how information directly supported by reliable sources as original research.... or is it that the authors of those sources did original research for their own works? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the sources say that 'Lamia as vampiric folklore' is a distinct topic from 'Lamia the mythological figure'? What is original research is this interpretation of the sources to support two Lamia articles. Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fences & Windows. The rewrite is all over the place and doesn't have a coherant topic. This information is better presented elsewhere in other articles. ThemFromSpace 02:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, there is now information in the article that is not duplicative of information elsewhere. A merge of that non-duplicative information to Vampire folklore by region improves that second article. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfortunate that people work so hard to rescue articles when perfectly good merge targets already exist. I am really not sure why some people worry about the deletion of a little bit of text; if the ideas are valuable, then people should be directed on how best to contribute them. For example, User:TheVampireMerchant, the original author of the article, should have been told to userfy his/her essay, then to work collaboratively with other editors on adding sourced material to Vampire folklore by region and Lamia (mythology). Isn't it Wikipedia's purpose to be a collaboration, not a place to post essays? Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, merge, or redirect Abductive, many of the sources refer to the folkloric Lamia, not the ancient mythological one. I see no valid reason why not to redirect or merge per WP:PRESERVE. Ikip (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not my interpretation. As I see it, the sources are very clear that there is only one Lamia. No sources say that there is a difference between a mythological Lamia and a folkloric one. In fact, the sources say the opposite; the myth of Lamia continued on/survived in later folklore. Really, what is the difference between myth and folklore anyway? Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems well written and well referenced. I dont know what the state was before the AFD, but it seems well referenced now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (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.