Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Followers of Set


 * 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. There's clearly no consensus to delete here. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Followers of Set

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In-universe description of a not-terribly-important fictional concept from a not immensely important game series, sourced entirely from primary sources. While appreciating the good faith of the creators, I think this would be better off on a fan wiki or Wikia devoted to the game series; the level of detail is vastly in excess of what is appropriate in a general encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, no good references. Atyndall93  |  talk  10:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now provided some references. --Loremaster (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are all references to primary sources, i.e. ones that are directly related to Vampire: The Masquerade. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. --Loremaster (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * strong delete it doesn't matter how "Well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable" it is, when it's not at all notable and encyclopedic for anything but a games fan wiki. "Stable" in this case just means mostly edited by one person, i.e. dozens of edits in the last two months by Loremaster who wrote the last comment voting keep. Merkin's   mum  12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when has "number of editors" had anything to do if we keep an article or not? IronGargoyle (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep; a "not immensely important game series"? I guess if all you've played is Monopoly and Chess, that's true, but it doesn't negate the fact that the World of Darkness is the second most popular RPG ever (speaking broadly) and that Vampire the Masquerade is probably the most popular RPG ever that's not got the letters D, &, and D in it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You got a source for that? Only, I think the makers of D&D and Warhammer might have something to say about it. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is not a major contender; Warhammer is not an RPG; and I specifically mentioned D&D above ("probably the most popular RPG ever that's not got the letters D, &, and D in it"). Do you have a source for how important it is, or do we have to believe you because you're an admin?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Twenty five years of Call of Cthulhu players might disagree with you. But this is neither here nor there as we're not arguing about the popularity of a particular game, but the notability of a small part of it. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Echoing Prosfilaes above, the nominator seems to be unaware of the impact of this game and Mythos. This unawareness also suggests that the nominator is perhaps not the individual who is best suited to determine the level of detail appropriate for coverage. It took me approximately ten seconds to find this reference from a secondary source. I'm sure there are plenty more. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, RPG fan forums are not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, it's not on the fan forum portion of the site. It's a legitimate review. Did you even look at the reference? Or did you just say... "hey, the website has rpg in the title, it must be unreliable fancruft." IronGargoyle (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This review has some real world context to it, and it is this material that is most desired in an article such as this one. Right now there is very little of that as it's mostly game material that has little use to someone who doesn't play the game. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the clans are an essentially important factor in the V:tM universe. It's a well-written article, it's well-referenced, and the importance of the universe is that it was the first of White Wolf's World of Darkness games. The Followers of Set are central to the fictional history of the in-game universe and their article is just as important as all the other clan-based articles for this universe. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Vampire the Masquerade has an article, because it is notable. But this discussion is about "Followers have Set" in relation to this game, who have never had a news article devoted to them in reliable sources, or even mentioning their name (news archive search for the phrase returns an article about Ancient Egypt, and a grammatically unrelated thing about a ship), not about whether VtheM is notable. They are not independently notable. At most the should be merged to the subject which has I think received some WP:RS attention- Vampire the Masquerade.  Merkin's   mum  17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable --Pustefix (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator's assertion that this is a general encyclopedia and so should not contain specialist material is mistaken as it is contrary to our fundamental policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a fan of the game myself, and it's quite notable. OptimistBen (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Removing this article would be like saying that no role-playing game should have any individual articles describing entities that exist only within the game world. The thirteen major clans are the second most notable sub-entities in Vampire: The Masquerade (losing only to the major sects), and there have been at least two source books published specifically for each of those thirteen. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this article doesn't talk about those source books. It repeats things from those source books and other primary sources with little to no real world context. "Individual articles describing entities that exist only within the game world" shouldn't exist unless those entities demonstrate notability (as defined in WP:N) independently of the game. Aside from a couple of sentences at the start of this article, there isn't much that is useful to people who don't play the game. Applicable guidelines include WP:WAF, WP:NOT, and WP:GAMECRUFT. The last guideline is written in the context of video games, but the gist of it applies in this case as well. Quoting the one sentence summary from there: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." It's likely that a decent article could be written about all of the major clans of V:TM, including real world context and actual secondary sources, given the wealth of material that has been written about the game. At the moment, this article isn't that. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand people wanting to clean Wikipedia of "trash articles" but I don't understand your die-hard preoccupation with deleting articles tied to Vampire: The Masquerade, which are not "trash". What gives? --Loremaster (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you answered your own question. At the moment, I don't find much redeeming about this article (or many oher similar ones) for the reasons that I state above. However, you'll also note I haven't voted to delete this one. As I said on other ocassions, I'm not questioning the notability of Vampire: The Masquerade. Over the weekend I added some references to Book of Nod, with some plans to improve the article (with actual real-world context and information/citations from reviews), but I also did delete a large quote that didn't add any context to that article (and possibly fails fair use guidelines, but am not sure about that). Have a look at the guidelines I mentioned above. I didn't write them, but there's some consensus about them. Of course there's also a fair bit of debate going on about spin-out articles (which some might consider these) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). If you have the stomach for it, you can read all 65 pages of talk about it. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you are right in your interpretation of these guidelines, the consensus here is to keep rather than delete. --Loremaster (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And if nothing else changes about this article, it's quite likely some other editor will nominate it for deletion in the future for precisely the same reason as has been done now. There's no information on notability, there's nothing beyond primary sources, it fails all the guidelines above, and is 99% in-universe material that is not useful to someone who doesn't play V:TM. So my friendly suggestion is that it needs to be cleaned up and these problems addressed, otherwise you and/or others will be back in another AfD arguing the same things that "it's important". I'm simply saying that if it's important (i.e. notable in the WP sense), then you should be able to demonstrate this with reliable sources/reviews/commentary/etc. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although you may be right, you currently seem to be the only person overly preoccupied with the usefulness and quality of this article... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What, aside from the nominator, and the three others who have voted "delete" you mean. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am referring to your campaign and the fact you've almost replied to every person who vote to "keep"... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and one of my comments was irrelevant (about the popularity of certain games), and one of them was actually an encouragement ("there's a source that has real-world context" which is what is desired by all the guidelines I mentioned). What "campaign" are you referring to? You should realize that I'm an inclusionist. If some deletionist editors I've encountered would come along here, then there's be much more forceful exchanges going on. I'm trying to help with my suggestions above so that you can avoid these AfDs in the future. As is, this is getting rather old. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I was referring to the campaign to have most Vampire: The Masquerade-related articles deleted which triggered the whole thing... Regardless, if you know exactly how to improve these articles, stop suggesting how to do it and just do it. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have begun to do so. It's hard to deal with all 57 articles in Category:Vampire: The Masquerade myself, as well as the other related Vampire RPG categories. That's why I'm trying to inform others as to what seems to be wrong with them so they can get involved too, but apparently no one wants to listen. As I've said before, if the articles are so important, show everyone they are. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have. Time to for me to pass the torch. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the above, is useful, comprehendible, and expands on content from other articles. Gary  K ing  ( talk ) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (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.