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 no consensus. One^{two^three...} 01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravnos[edit]

I tagged this article with ((notability)) over a week ago, and nothing has been done to improve it. There is still nothing in the way of independent sources, failing the general notability guideline.

I urge the closing administrator to ignore the inevitable "we should ignore notability" keep votes, as this does not constitute a specific, itemized exception to a guideline, but rather an attempt to subvert the intention of the guideline of being in general applicability by attacking it in specific cases, since consensus has not shifted. Mintrick (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason has been given for deletion. An article needing improvement is not a reason for deletion and allowing only one week is ignoring guidelines on Wikipedia not being on a dealine. Edward321 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is a valid reason for deletion, and this article doesn't meet that requirement. The week's notice was a courtesy. Mintrick (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability tag is only listed as from April 2009. Stating you tagged it over a week ago is insignificant as a week is not enough time and many of the article's contributors and / or people interested in the subject to potentially contribute can be entirely unaware that the tag was added so recently. Though notability is a reason for deletion, you have not sufficiently proven that notability can not be established. Looking at the other "Clan" articles for Vampire: The Masquerade notability has been established for at least one of them. Therefore, there is no reason to believe this article could not meet notability as well. Stating that "[the] notice was a courtesy" already reveals your agenda and intention to delete rather than attempt to improve the article. Additionally, although this is not entirely related to the topic of Ravnos, clicking on your own contributions a number of articles you have made are currently up for deletion many of them for the very reason you cite here "notability". I can't help but feel this could be more a personal attack than a serious effort to improve Wiki.JasonFrankTed (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar. Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to point members of this debate to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability discussing how to reliably determine notability for RPG games. With some of the suggested methods, it would be quite easy to establish notability for this article. As such, any talks of deletion should also take proposed rules and guidelines determined by that project into account. Also, I find it kinda in poor taste that this article was nominated for deletion without the nominator notifying the page's author or major contributors as Wiki guidelines suggest. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar. Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability discussion

(Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability#Criteria)

A role-playing game or game topic^[1] is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

The game or topic has been a subject^[2] of multiple, non-trivial^[3] published works whose sources are independent of the game or topic,^[4] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information.^[5]
- The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the game or game topic.^[6]
- Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or staff writer. Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability, so online reviews must come from multiple sources or be supported by additional coverage.
The game or topic has won a major award.
The game or topic represents a significant milestone in the development of role-playing games.
- This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first game within a given major genre of setting or the first to use a setting which was later widely used; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant step by multiple reliable sources. Generic role-playing games do not prevent future setting-specific games from counting under this criterion.
The game's designer or setting is so historically significant that any officially associated works may be considered notable; or it is the focus of an active WikiProject
- This includes licensed games of significant franchises.

Specifically:

"Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or staff writer. Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability, so online reviews must come from multiple sources or be supported by additional coverage."

Can easily be established.

"This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first game within a given major genre of setting or the first to use a setting which was later widely used; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant step by multiple reliable sources. Generic role-playing games do not prevent future setting-specific games from counting under this criterion."

Vampire: The Masquerade and it's clans were the first in a long series of White Wolf games, including the later spiritual successor Vampire: The Requiem to format their character classes and back story in this manner. It can be established notability due to the successor games of White Wolf. White Wolf and Vampire itself have already established notability further granted by "The game or topic has won a major award." 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if the above were an official guideline, there is only evidence that Vampire is, not that Ravnos is notable. For Ravnos to be notable, the coverage must refer to Ravnos, or the unique element must be found in Ravnos. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a week isn't long on wiki and we haven't got a deadline. It is a pretty central plot element of the game it belongs to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no evidence of substantial independent coverage in the article - a single exlink to a gallery site is hardly substantial. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per calisber. This article can be improved. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable independent sources cover this fictional clan of vampires in the realityverse. Then redirect to whichever of the iterations of the game is most popular.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other clans in this game have been previously nominated for deletion, and always kept: Followers of Set (AfD discussion), Tremere (AfD discussion), Assamite (AfD discussion). As pointed out in each of those discussions, deletion of one of these articles in isolation from the others would be nonsensical. Nominate them as a group - or, better, discuss a merger on Talk:Clans and Bloodlines in Vampire: The Masquerade, as outright deletion is unlikely. —Korath (Talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is it really that unlikely? So far there are two delete !votes with reasoning that addresses notability, and no keep !votes with reasoning that addresses notability. Isn't it possible that some clans have had sufficient coverage and others haven't? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WikiProjects don't get to set lower notability bars for articles in their purview. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2009 (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.

^ A game "topic" includes sourcebooks released for a game, mechanics of games, and characters, locations, fantasy races or other elements of a game's setting.
^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the game, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
^ An "independent source" is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular game or game topic. Releases by the publisher of a game do not establish notability; for example, reviews in Dragon magazine cannot be used to establish notability of products released by TSR or Wizards of the Coast. Third-party sourcebooks on a topic are in general not independent references for the topic they cover, since their authors have a financial interest in that topic.
^ It is not sufficient to show that a game or game topic is notable within a particular fictional setting; sources must establish that the topic is notable from a real-world perspective. Hence, unless a source contains a non-trivial amount of coverage of a game or game topic from a real-world perspective, it does not count towards this criterion. In particular, in-universe and game-mechanical descriptions of a topic do not meet this criterion.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.