Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire lifestyle

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. I note, however, that even many of the "keep" voters expressed reservations about the current content and tone of the article. Based on that concensus, I am going to reimpose the "cleanup" tag. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire lifestyle

Overly credulous and fairly ridiculous description of a subculture that already gets five paragraphs in the main vampire article. Cleaning this up would necessitate cutting it down to the size of vampire's section about this group. This was previously VfDed in June 2004 (see Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete); the majority voted to delete, but no consensus was reached, and of those who voted "Keep", most added that it should be sent to Cleanup. Eight months' worth of edits later, only a few of the crazier claims have been removed. Redirect to vampire. -Sean Curtin 02:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiably notable. ComCat 02:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Margins of margins of margins of the self-deluded, and here presented as if verifiable truth. I had voted delete before, and I do so again, here. It surely hasn't gotten any better in the past 8 months, and I thought we had consensus to delete. Geogre 02:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to vampire then drive a stake through the heart of this article (or redirect). This essay is a long POV piece. It is true that, whether one likes it or not, there are people who believe as explained in this article; however, the parts that are not POV or simply unverifiable are only a slight icing on the exising subsection in vampire. HyperZonk^talk 03:28, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this unfortunate article. Again, cleanup. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but make a little more factual and less far-fetched. There is nothing wrong with encyclopaedically describing a subculture, provided that the writer doesn't come across as a likely member of it! 80.255 10:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to vampire. Cleanup would leave it looking very similar to the subsection there, which doesn't (quite) need to be broken out into its own article. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with Korath. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but remove/rework POV content where appropriate. Notable subject and a major subculture. I'd check to make sure this isn't duplicated under similar topics such as Goth (I know Goths aren't vampires but people often confuse the two lifestyles) and Masquerade. 23skidoo 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a notable, though fringe, subculture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to vampire. --Carnildo 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as its own article about subculture. -- Decumanus 02:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete Give them a week ultimatim: if the pov isn't gone, the article should go. Zantastik 07:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Zantastik, a vampire lifestle article without the POV would be fine, i like the ultimatim idea--Jersyko 17:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This subculture deserves its own article. -Hapsiainen 00:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with vampire
• Are there any vampires to back this up? My point exactly. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.