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. WP:NOR is a core policy, and the convincing arguments that this list is by its structure and content mostly OR have not been rebutted or in most cases even addressed by the "keep" opinions. An attempt by an editor to remove the OR was reverted. I must therefore give less weight to the "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction[edit]

List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (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 indiscriminate list of traits with no clear reason for its existence. Many of the entries aren't even technically vampires, like the Wraith from Stargate, who are an alien race that resemble vampires, as well as rampant speculation, so there is a heavy dose of original research in most of the entries.

An examination of why the vampire traits exist could make sense, but not as a list, it appears to be solely for trivia purposes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, purely indiscriminate OR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are 49 references in the article now. This is useful to show have vampires have been portrayed throughout history, bringing a greater understanding to this notable subject. Dream Focus 02:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vampire literature is rather descriptive on how vampires have been portrayed throughout history, including how vampirism turned into a disease that could be contracted, etc. This article is not about that at all, only an indiscriminate comparison of vampiric traits. A lot of the references are from the same place too, so there's definitely not 49 actual separate references and many of them are primary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing the number of references in the article is not a very compelling arguing, seeing as most of them are not from a reliable source, but merely pieces of fiction. And in fact, most of those 49 references are from the same handful of pieces of fiction. For example, 11 of the 49 sources are all just episodes from the one show, Forever Knight. And there are ones that are simply youtube videos, or ones that aren't even actual references, simply random footnotes like "Manga-Exclusive Character". Its the actual quality of the sources, and if they actually cover the information that's being presented in the article, that matters. Not the fact that there are 49 (mostly terrible) sources. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we should expect a novel to be a fairly reliable source for what happens in the novel -- unless it's written in invisible ink, this doesn't seem like a reasonable objection. jp×g 01:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's the nomination which is indiscriminate as there's no clear reason for its existence – we already had a discussion and the consensus was to keep. You see, if you actually do some WP:BEFORE, you find that there is extensive coverage of the topic. For example, here's an entire book on the topic: Vampires of Lore : Traits and Modern Misconceptions. And here's an entire Encyclopedia, which naturally has plenty to say about the various traits in the various portrayals. So, the usual policies apply: WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a topic that has been covered a ton, even if the article is not in the best shape.★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or perhaps a very light Merge to Vampire#Description and common attributes - An article or section of the main Vampire article actually discussing common, notable vampire traits that are actually referenced to reliable sources that are not simply pieces of fiction is a valid, notable topic. Maybe the books that Andrew cited would actually be valid sources for that. What they are not valid sources for is a massive list that is entirely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and almost entirely unsourced. Most of this information is entirely WP:OR - there are no listed reliable sources, for example, describing the official traits of vampires in the Sesame Street universe, simply a youtube video that someone watched and extrapolated "facts" from. Additionally many of the entries have "probably", "maybe", or question marks after their "facts", pretty much showing that the information was not taken from an actual reliable source presenting this information, but is being guessed after watching/reading said piece of fiction. There are a few actually reliably sourced pieces of information here, mostly the ones using the Skal book as a reference. That actual reliably sourced information can be merged into the main Vampire article, if it is not already there, until a time when maybe an article that is not 90 percent WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is developed. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - You could probably make a pretty decent summary style prose article on the evolution of vampire traits and weaknesses in media, but that is not this article. This is just a dumpster fire of indiscriminate information that has no purpose other than showing how to not make an article. There is zero merit in keeping it around. TTN (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an impressive piece of WP:OR and I'd suggest someone copies this to some fan wiki for vampires or such. But it is not suitable for us (OR, quite major too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article as it stands. The problem is that this article relies on editors data-gathering from primary sources. That's textbook WP:OR: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Having lots of references which are primary sources is simply thoroughly-researched OR (Is it up to a wikipedia editor to decide that it's of significant interest to vampire lore that Count Duckula was green?). An acceptable page would be one that deleted all of these fancruft magnet tables and instead used secondary source surveys.OsFish (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) This is now my second choice: I have suggested a move to a new title (see below)[reply]
• Comment I'll admit that I found it rather amusing to see Count Chocula's weaknesses listed as Gets soggy in milk; mastication; expiration date., but I also think it's embarrassing for Wikipedia. The previous AfD referenced above was back in 2012 and although the consensus was to keep the article, it was also noted that the article needed improvement which has not really materialized since.
  The article is at present basically a "Comparison of X" article (see e.g. comparison of web browsers) with a different title. While I don't think that there's anything wrong with "comparison of X" articles per se, I don't think they're appropriate for fictional concepts. See the essay WP:CARGO—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. Instead, what we have is a bunch of WP:Original research and content sourced mostly to WP:Primary sources, which should be quite a red flag. This is the kind of content I would expect to find over at Wikia (which is not a knock on them, just an acknowledgement that we do things differently), not here.
  We can of course write about concepts in fiction if we do it in prose form rather than in list form; I have personally rewritten a few list articles and turned them to prose articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction. Poorly constructed lists such as this one often become WP:INDISCRIMINATE and uninformative; they become list of rainy days in London rather than climate of London. This is one of the problems with writing "list of..." articles, since it makes them more difficult to fix (note that none of the articles I mentioned as having converted to prose were titled "list of..."). Covering the topic of vampire traits in our existing prose articles (Vampire literature#Traits of vampires in fiction, Vampire#Description and common attributes) as suggested above rather than in this terrible list article seems like a way better solution to me.
  That being said, there is a way to convert this into a proper encycoplaedic article with the current title: scrap the tables and replace them with a paragraph or two of sourced analysis about each trait. If that were to be done, I would potentially be in favour of keeping the article (I say potentially because it might still be more appropriate to merge, it's difficult to say without having seen that as-yet hypothetical version of this article). David J. Skal's V is for Vampire : An A to Z Guide to Everything Undead might be a good source to use for that. TompaDompa (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Genuine question, as I'm not sure myself: in your view, what would get the page viable as a page in its own right rather material better added at Vampire#Description and common attributes? Would it not have to be something fairly substantial? OsFish (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being too lengthy would be the obvious answer. I'm unsure if there is anything else that could do it, hence why I would need to see it before making up my mind. TompaDompa (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT. That sources covering vampire traits in fiction can be found does not translate into having a list cataloging every piece of trivia on the subject. See, for example, the very last entry, detailing the leadership, ranks and collective organization of vampires in RuneScape: where's the significant coverage of that in reliable and independent sources? Most of the list follows this pattern. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely, if there is something in an article that's poorly written or referenced, it would be possible to edit that article and remove it. For example, someone adding "best known for being a huge dumbass" to an article about a politician will be responded to with removal of the sentence, rather than deletion of the article. jp×g 01:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User OsFish tried doing that (he removed basically everything) and it got reverted. Between nearly blanking the page and voting delete, there is no difference. Vampirism in folklore should be covered in adequate prose style, not an indiscriminate list. Whoever is disposed to do the former is free to proceed anywhere else without even touching this list. Avilich (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. WP:FANCRUFT is pejorative, and not a policy-based reason for deletion. Individual bits of WP:OR can and should be sourced or excised. Once again, we have a raft of WP:VAGUEWAVEs that don't actually amount to any policy-based reason for deletion, and hence really should be considered de facto WP:IDONTLIKEIT and discarded by the closing admin. The admissions above that with work this would constitute an encyclopedic topic, albeit maybe without Count Chocula, means that deletion is not the only option for keeping the article, and WP:ATD expects that editing, rather than deletion, be used in such cases. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A fair bit of this material might be usable in Vampire, or Vampire literature, or even Vampire traits in folklore and fiction, all of which are obviously notable. What's not viable is this bizarre list. I don't see any literature providing a comparative overview of all these traits, and in the absence of such, the list is very much indiscriminate. How were the works selected? How are the traits selected? Why are entire folkloric traditions treated the same as single films? How is variation within a folkloric tradition accounted for? These problems largely go away if one is using a decent scholarly source and writing prose, but I really don't see how a policy-compliant table is possible. As an aside, the title's wildly wrong, too; it's not a list of traits, of which there are distinctly more than 7. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having read the article and the comments above, it's clear this is WP:OR, an editor's analysis of a complex situation in the attempt of imposing order; this is clearly not according to policy, as the analysis itself is unsupported by reliable sources, indeed any sources. I therefore concur with Vanamonde93 that this is not rescuable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being based mostly on original research, that is, traits being taken from reading novels or watching films and television shows, generally without even being cited to the primary source much less to a secondary source. Even the traits of vampires in European and North American folklore are mostly unsourced. In addition, some fictional works depict only one vampire, and it's not always clear whether the characteristics of that one vampire would be true for other vampires in the same fictional universe, but this table does not clearly address that issue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- this spreadsheet is inherently original research. Reyk _YO! 10:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- a lot of people have put a lot of work into this... Tamtrible (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible argument btw. WP:MERCY. - hako9 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: An article being stupid is not a deletion rationale, and an article being shitty is not a deletion rationale. These are great reasons to clean up an article; AfD is not cleanup. As Vanamonde noted in their delete !vote above, the subject of vampires is notable, a list of fictional vampires is notable, and the topic of the traits of fictional vampires is notable; I am not seeing the great evil of this article's existence. If it contains original research, surely it's within our power to remove the original research. Is the claim really being made here that it's impossible to find a citation for whether vampires in folklore can be destroyed by sunlight? If it is, that's obviously false, and if it isn't, I see no reason for this to be at AfD. jp×g 01:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Vampire traits in folklore and fiction: ie it shouldn't be a "list of" article. Delete !votes are based on the fundamental structure of the article as it is. Of course, it's valid to object that poorly sourced articles can be revised if reliable sources are out there, and it's true that secondary sources make general comments on the representations of vampires citing notable examples. The problem is, the current structure that lists individual examples backed by OR is dictated by the title, which means the OR objections are valid, not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The subject matter, if sourced according to policy to secondary sources, does not lend itself to being presented as a table where individual examples are listed. I had a brief go at taking a knife to the article to get rid of the HUGE amount of OR and gave up because basically, it should be prose-based. It could have a short neat table at the end for convenience comparing regional variations (European vs Chinese etc.), but not as the meat of the article. So change it from being a list article.OsFish (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have removed the OR and the entries for individual stories to show what I mean. In case it is reverted, this version is here. Clearly, it now needs the addition of sourced material discussing each trait, when it appeared, where, and how common. I hope people can see why I think this topic is not served well by a "list of" approach.OsFish (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum I should have linked to the list policy page WP:SAL to make clear my policy-based argument for a move from a list article to a prose article. "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list. Many stand-alone lists identify their content's format in their titles, beginning with descriptors such as "list of", "timeline of", or similar. " This means the title dictates a list of the sort that people citing WP:NOR object to. The title is not List of vampires but list of traits of vampires, so merely having a bluelink is not enough for inclusion. WP:SAL asks us to reflect on whether the selection of items in a list are "canonical", which, without secondary sources specifically naming them as such (in this case, a canonical example of a trait), is OR. It also requires OR to investigate and highlight the characteristics of each vampire to fill all the columns in a table. All in all, a prose article is better.OsFish (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OsFish: Is there any particular reason why it would not be better at present to cover this in the existing articles (Vampire literature#Traits of vampires in fiction and/or Vampire#Description and common attributes) as suggested above, considering the brevity? TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TompaDompa: That's a great question, and to be honest, I'm agnostic. Basically, I've changed my vote to move or delete because it seems clear that the list format is the problem. (It isn't how the literature covers it, it isn't a useful way of covering it, and it would unavoidably need substantial OR to not be a table with 90% cells saying "?") I think even the majority of keep !voters agree that the article as it stands is unacceptably packed full of OR given that they agree it should be founded on secondary sources instead. My suspicion is there is probably enough to get a decent article done if it's done in prose. If it stays as a list, it should be deleted. Such a table would be inappropriate in the main vampire article too.OsFish (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your 'attempted rescue' (already reverted) was basically equivalent to deletion. All you did was introduce a pointless procedural argument for keeping while agreeing with the deletionists' core idea that the current rendition is inadequate and that prose would be preferable. I imagine assessment of consensus will be made unnecessarily more difficult because of that. Nothing is preventing anyone from writing a decent paragraph or two on the subject of vampirism in fiction, and there's no reason why this should be done here, in this article, rather than anywhere else. Avilich (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Avilich: You may not be aware, but it is acceptable to try to improve an article while a deletion discussion is going on. "No original research" is not some bureaucratic rule, but a core principle of the encyclopedia, so removing it isn't a subversive act. I cut out the OR to show what the foundation of a properly sourced article on a list of the traits would look like (rather than an editor-sourced analysis of editor-selected vampires, as it currently is). I clearly stated that it was a starting point for further improvement. I openly invited people to revert if they objected to show that I was not trying to bypass the discussion. There is broad consensus among all !voters that there is too much OR in the article. (The notable exception is the person who reverted, whose argument for keep here is "a lot of people have put a lot of work into this", which is obviously not a policy-based argument). My edit only looked like deletion because of the sheer amount of OR.

Look at the arguments. The keep !votes are based on there being RS for the topic, the delete !votes are based on the table being horrible for various policy based reasons with many conceding that RS does exist. You yourself agree a prose form is better. By cutting out the OR from the table as is correct according to fundamental policy, if it happens to lay clear that prose is better (so change the title in a move), but we still get to keep the RS-based material, then doesn't that keep most people happy? Moving to another title is a common outcome of an AFD discussion. OsFish (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. There certainly seem to be enough secondary sources to support a stand-alone article or list, fulfilling WP:GNG. I don't really see how the structure should promote OR. However I think the transformation away from the table structure and move to Vampire traits in folklore and fiction as suggested by OsFish is a good idea. Daranios (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:OR and slight WP:CONTENTFORK from the vampire article. The format is incredibly bizarre with no criteria for inclusion of traits or the ‘setting’ this is really just OR. No reason why these sources can’t be used to add to the vampire article. No need for this list form - smacks of fancruft. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure OR. Invites and appeals readers to insert more OR. For instance, in the appearance traits, Sesame Street, Count von Count is labelled reflection - No. The source is a youtube link. The page for Count von Count says "he has been seen with a reflection". Then in weakness traits, for D&D, under sunlight, label is "Fatal, but they will survive very short exposure". What if I change that to medium exposure. The whole thing is a mess. There will always be a "citation needed" and "disputed" tag for every label under every trait if one tries to verify this garbage. OsFish's arguments don't stand. This article simply cannot be improved. Most labels aren't verifiable. - hako9 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2021 (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.