Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction


 * 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. The consensus to keep the article, and hopefully improve it, is clear. The form the improvements should take is less clear, but that's a discussion for the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article seems to be just a listing of trivia. Perhaps merge some of the contents in the main Vampire article, as prose, or just delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely indiscriminate, poorly sourced, not the way to sort this thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't our policies on deletion recommend only leaving a "delete" opinion if the topic does not meet our criteria? Arenn't weak articles on notable topics supposed to be fixed, not deleted?  Isn't the comment above "not the way to sort this thing" a tacit admission that the respondent acknowledges this is a notable topic, and that they merely think the article presents it in the wrong way?  Clarification please -- do you agree this topic should be covered -- but in a different way?  If so is there some other reason why our usual techniques for improving weak articles shouldn't be followed?  Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see it as trivia and it certainly isn't indiscriminate; The analysis of how vampires have been represented is encyclopedic, the problem is that so much of it is unsourced and the detail is just excessive. I would rather see this covered in prose, either in this article or in the Vampire article. --Michig (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - of all mythological creatures, vampires are one of the ones which has detailed discussion of traits/strengths/vulnerabilities etc. Most books discussing vampires discuss this in detail. Yes I can imagine this list can get huge with lots of unreferenced entries, and should possibly be trimmed to those vampires notable enough to have been compared with other vampires. As far as upmerging, Vampires in popular culture is huge, as is Vampire film, so destination would be overladed plus in the wrong layout. Both of those articles are better as prose and this as a list. As far as sourcing, there are sufficient to define notability of the subject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger and this is therefore not a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep When plot elements can be referenced to primary sources, V is met. The topic is notable, as Cas posits above, and there is so much information here it seems problematic to merge substantial parts of it anywhere. I would like to see more commentary included, rather than the list deleted.  Just because it goes into much detail doesn't mean that there's a problem with trivia.  Indeed, tables like these are among the most clear ways to present this much information. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful list for our core readership, students. 'Compare and contrast' lists, other than for software (which has been contentious), have been kept before. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I agree with Ten Pound Hammer that this is currently a weak article. I disagree that deletion is in order.  I think our normal procedures for addressing editorial problems are in order.  I agree that tables are used poorly here.  .  I agree more prose, with references belong in the article.  But the topic itself is a notable one.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep We all prefer prose articles. So what? Slap a Template:Prose tag on it and WP:SNOW this thing already. Anarchangel (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The list should be left in tables, because doing it in prose would make it longer. Skuag 02:23, 01 April 2012 (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.