Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire houses in Blade


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vampire houses in Blade

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This in-fiction article appears to be a collection of speculation and uncertainty. It has just two references, neither of which is reliable (one is a link to a forum, the other link is dead). We have phrases such as are believed, supposedly and possibly (the latter several times) - this is not encyclopedic content. I42 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this seems to be bordering on indiscriminate information. I can see no significant coverage in reliable sources that indicates independent notability of the houses. Without reliable sources, I don't see how any real-world analysis could be added. If any of the information is verifiable, then it could be merged to Blade (comics), but that doesn't look likely at the moment, so deletion would probably be best.-- Beloved Freak  11:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  11:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Great little article if it was on on a hypothetical "Bladeopedia" - it explains a lot about the backstory of Blade (film series) and I admit I'm a fan of that "in-world" - that said, the article is simply fancruft, and must be deleted.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical? Ever heard of a little Jimmy Wales project called Wikia?Blade Wiki, Wikia. (see Disclaimer) Anarchangel (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heard of it now! Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (Ooh, that doesn't appear to be water coming out of the sprinklers...}


 * delete, lovely article bar far too in universe for wikipedia. Maybe worth copying to user space so the author could move it to some other wiki.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP > Wikia move complete. (see Disclaimer) Anarchangel (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- fancruft that is virtually sourceless and overflowing with original research. Reyk  YO!  23:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:DELETE is the only objective standard. All arguments to delete, here, are based on essays or interpretations of policy. WP:UNIVERSE in particular should rarely if ever be seen in AfD; it is a writing style. Editors should comment on the talk page about it if they cannot actually write. There is a certain irony in combining 'fancruft' and 'OR'. Which is it? Facts about the franchise, or made up stuff? But not as much irony as there is in deletion based on lack of sources. RS: "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". And yet WP currently allows deletion based on the interpretation of WP policy, which is itself other WPn's interpretation.
 * Google search for "Blade+Erebus+Faustinas"
 * Disclaimer: My move of the article to Wikia in no way reflects an opinion that it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Anarchangel (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said in universe I wasn't actually referring to the essay, but making a general point. The info on the page is very detailed in universe information that for me is too in depth for wikipedia. I can see there being a case to mention that there are houses in the main Blade article, and maybe reference a couple of the major ones, but this level of info is too in depth for for an article of its own. There are other ways to say that, but I was trying to avoid them. However, it's quite possible for something to be overly fan oriented and OR at the same time. It's hard to say if this is OR though as no real refs are provided. For all I know this is a perfectly accurate description of these fictional houses, but I'm not about to go and read the Blade canon to find out. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Reply to Anarchangel) We have to base our arguments on our interpretations of policy because articles don't automatically delete themselves when policy is breached. There has to be a human element that decides if policies are breached. The information in the article is, as far as I can tell, unverifiable (policy), appears to be original research (policy) and in my opinion goes against WP:NOT (policy). If you don't think it is, for example, original research, this is the place to put forward an argument. WP:DELETE is not "the only objective standard". Near the top of that page is written "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following..." (my emphasis). It then lists "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia', linking to WP:NOT.-- Beloved Freak  11:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BF, I was wrong when I criticized "all arguments to delete". I expect it can be verified by someone with access to the DVDs' expanded content. The existence of the clans and their names is verifiable, but I cannot support the V of the expanded information about the clans with RS, in that I could find no Google sources that backed up the Vampire.com Erebus article. I am not convinced by NOT; it has been asserted but not shown, and the content and style of the article seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 * I stand by my arguments against using non-DEL rationale for deletion. Policy content such as WP:IDL directly address the conduct of discussion, and are thus distinct from rationale from deletion, altho' Essays are always a little iffy.
 * DEL#Reason does not limit itself to its own provisions because policy does not automatically inform editors, should an exception come up. Essays such as Fancruft are not an exception, or they would have been listed; they are based on subjective assessments. Objective reasoning, not interpretations, is the way to make arguments in AfD. That is the reasoning behind IDONTLIKE; editor's subjective impressions of things are not good policy. Everything outside of DEL, that does not obviously present itself as being a problem necessitating additions to DEL, is Policycruft. Fancruft is particularly insidious because it allows what would be a strength in other articles, depth of information, to be used against articles on games, films, TV series and music. It is just systemic bias turned into an essay. Anarchangel (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2011 (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.