Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Carstein


 * 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. Primary sources, even if reliable, do not establish notability. No prejudice against creating a redirect or disambiguation page though the usual editorial processes, but I don't see a strong case here for one or the other. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Von Carstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional bloodline. No primary sources cited, never mind secondary (article tagged for over nine years), and the article is almost entirely in-universe (article tagged for over a decade). A search throws up almost nothing particularly useful as a source... This journal article (from an extremely minor publisher) has a single sentence about the bloodline within a paragraph about the portrayal of vampires in the Warhammer universe generally. This is not enough to support an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy This is yet another collection of plot-related information that would only interest a small segment of Warhammer fans. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 19:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fictional group. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Karnstein Trilogy. When I saw this come up, I thought this was what it was in relation to, or the original Carmilla novel. At any rate, it is a plausible misspelling for there, and the current subject lack notability. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a dab page would be appropriate? I'm not sure there's anything worth merging here, so we could create a dab page after it's deleted. Maybe it could be at Carstein, with Von Carstein a redirect? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep* There appears to be a debate regarding sources, material and relevance, which while I can see your views as stated above, I must disagree. The novels referenced in the article should be the sources cited. Having read them, they were written with permission by the Games Workshop under the Black Library - and are treated as canon for the franchise. Additionally, the entire outline of the portions for Vlad, Mannfred and Konrad are a synopsis of those novels. Additional literature in print as given with the Armies: Vampires listing are relevant. If you are unfamiliar with this franchise, there is a "undead" segment for the fantasy game, the WFRP table-top, and the Total War: Warhammer (1&2) computer games that set the von Carstein bloodline separate from the Undead category. There is an explicit reason for this - the von Carstein bloodline and it's history starting with Vlad is an integral and separate faction that has special relevance to the WFRP game based on the atmosphere it is meant to evoke. An example of this would be the differences between the history of the undead starting with Nagash, and the evolution of the von Carsteins as a separate but related entity within the game canon. If you are having issues with citing sources, I suggest you start first with the listed novels, then with the listed game supplements, and then contact Games Workshop directly - you can also purchase or find someone who owns Total War: Warhammer 1 or 2 - as the game comes with an ingame encyclopedia that may contain additional information, again considered canon as the developers of the franchise actually wrote all the background information in each format for public consumption. If you feel that this information is only relevant to a small minority of the fans - keep in mind that this franchise is more than 30 years old (WFRP was first written in 1986 - has had numerous publishers and owners over the years and it now entering a 5th franchise market (WFRP, Novels, Miniatures Gamers, Cardgames, and now computer games), so I would hasten to point out that a "minor setting development only interesting to a small fan base" may be worth reconsidering.Soulheld (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comments. The trouble with the sources you have identified is that they are all primary sources. While articles can use primary sources (novels, gamebooks, etc.) they can't be based on them. Instead, they need to be based on (in Wikipedia jargon) "reliable sources", such as peer-reviewed scholarly discussions or journalistic analyses published in reputable magazines, newspapers, and so on. Without evidence of these reliable sources, the article subject is probably not considered (more jargon) "notable" for Wikipedia's purposes, and thus does not warrant its own article. Are you aware of any secondary sources of this sort? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply ( - Depends on what format of the market you are looking to quote. The problem with most secondary sources is that you are dealing with multiple platforms here. So for instance, you can go to the Total War: Warhammer forums regarding von Carsteins for the cpu games, and receive a wealth of discussion regarding the von carstein play faction, tactics, decision trees specifically for playing the game. Conversely you can go to the Warhammer wfrp fandom.site - and get on forums there, which will focus on mainly discussion in character builds, how to incorporate timelines and history into campaigns, etc. I am not saying there are no secondary sources to cite, I am saying that the secondary sources that are most easily reached will provide a lot of conjecture and supposition on the topic, and maybe 5-10% relevance to this post/article. Now that I understand the need for secondary sources, the debate I read above makes a little more sense - but with any fantasy fic project, this secondary source requirement is going to pop up frequently and in the same context as what I just outlined for the von Carstein thread and article. The easiest and perhaps best way to circumvent this (assuming we can find it) is to look for reviews on the novels and discussion regarding the franchise - since the novels are considered canon, and novel reviews may be easier than scouring a cpu game forum looking for canon material that backs up the current article. Warhammer (fantasy and 40k) operates through the Black Library, which is well known in the fantasy novels circle and really big in the UK due to it being based there, so it may be worth starting there for reviews and scholarly articles. Additionally, TSR/Dragon and Dungeon/Polyhedron magazines (two big time names that have followed virtually all rpg gaming releases in the US - TSR/Dragon 1976-2007, then online until 2013/ Dungeon/Polyhedron 1981-2005) may have a review when this first came out so we would need to look initially for 1986/1987 era magazine articles on that end - and there are other magazine titles that we can dig up for this - such as Phantasmagoria - a horror/horror fiction magazine that reviews movies, books, games, music and artwork that fit the genre, etc. This is what I came up with as a short list - I will do some more digging and see if I can get a more expansive set of possible leads in this category.2601:442:100:1A30:5C1D:5138:14A:2C81 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The format doesn't really matter; what matters for the general notability guideline is that the clan itself "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Posts on forums do not count as reliable sources; to repeat, paradigms of reliable sources would be published, peer-reviewed scholarly work or journalistic work published in reputable newspapers or magazines. Book reviews published in decent genre magazines are certainly the sort of thing that will probably count (as long as they're independent - discussions in White Dwarf probably don't count!), though, naturally enough, they're more likely to focus on the books and authors than on the Von Carstein clan. You're right that "with any fantasy fic project, this secondary source requirement is going to pop up frequently"; on Wikipedia, there's probably more place for articles about video games, tabletop games, novels, and so on than there is for articles on the fictional characters who appear in them. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Fails GNG. Real world information is needed. TTN (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2019 (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.