Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Vampire lifestyle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
- Scattershot, unverifiable content. What there is that could be salvaged would be a duplication of the "subculture" section in the main vampire article. -Sean Curtin 21:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This article was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but was moved here due to deadlocked voting. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Is the policy no longer to default to keep if there is no consensus by the end of the voting period? Or are we going to keep voting on this until delete gets its way? Falcon 02:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and send to cleanup. Actually looks a lot like what I know of it. Though I only skimmed it. Structure is awful and it needs references - David Gerard 21:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy delete ASAP! This stupidity has already been deleted once before! - Lucky 6.9 21:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Deleted from what title? Falcon 00:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If memory serves, it was this same title. I knew what this article was going to say even before I opened it. That doesn't make me prescient. I've seen this before. - Lucky 6.9 00:42, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think the previous article was vampire subculture, which is now a redirect to vampire, as the latter article covers this phenomenon quite sufficiently. -Sean Curtin 20:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think that we should try to cover every topic to the fullest. That was one of the pages that the article was moved from, and maybe someone thought it would be a good redirect afterward. Anyways, since when was there a limit on the amount of information that could be written on a particular topic, as long as it was organised? Falcon 03:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- A topic should be covered to the fullest, but in a case like this where the sources never agree with one another on the specifics of what they believe, including any information from the websites generally isn't a good idea. For example, the link you provided below seems to have directly lifted much of its concept of "Vampyrism" from the Vampire: The Masquerade role-playing game; the aspects that they haven't derived from the game (like the specific distinctions between and nomenclature for "Psys" and "Sangs") seem to be unique to that one website. -Sean Curtin 05:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I happen to know personally a number of people who believe almost exactly in that particular belief, but I am sure there are a large number of versions. At least, we could make a generalisation and treat all contradictory information as debatable fact, except for the fact that it is not fact, only a belief. Falcon 04:07, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Repeating myself: certain aspects described by the article seem to be unique to that one website. If only one website uses a term or distinction, it should't be in the article at all. If the only references to a subset of these people are a tiny number of message board posts, that subset shouldn't be mentioned. -Sean Curtin 03:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Then perhaps we should exclude those particular data. Falcon 04:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Repeating myself: certain aspects described by the article seem to be unique to that one website. If only one website uses a term or distinction, it should't be in the article at all. If the only references to a subset of these people are a tiny number of message board posts, that subset shouldn't be mentioned. -Sean Curtin 03:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I happen to know personally a number of people who believe almost exactly in that particular belief, but I am sure there are a large number of versions. At least, we could make a generalisation and treat all contradictory information as debatable fact, except for the fact that it is not fact, only a belief. Falcon 04:07, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- A topic should be covered to the fullest, but in a case like this where the sources never agree with one another on the specifics of what they believe, including any information from the websites generally isn't a good idea. For example, the link you provided below seems to have directly lifted much of its concept of "Vampyrism" from the Vampire: The Masquerade role-playing game; the aspects that they haven't derived from the game (like the specific distinctions between and nomenclature for "Psys" and "Sangs") seem to be unique to that one website. -Sean Curtin 05:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think that we should try to cover every topic to the fullest. That was one of the pages that the article was moved from, and maybe someone thought it would be a good redirect afterward. Anyways, since when was there a limit on the amount of information that could be written on a particular topic, as long as it was organised? Falcon 03:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think the previous article was vampire subculture, which is now a redirect to vampire, as the latter article covers this phenomenon quite sufficiently. -Sean Curtin 20:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If memory serves, it was this same title. I knew what this article was going to say even before I opened it. That doesn't make me prescient. I've seen this before. - Lucky 6.9 00:42, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Deleted from what title? Falcon 00:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Silliness, yes, but well-covered. I doubt any but the mentally ill actually hold most of these beliefs, but instead claim to for attention-seeking reasons. Still, that should not reflect upon the article. The article actually does a fairly good job of portraying the themes of the subculture. Keep and send to cleanup. SWAdair | Talk 08:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I had no idea at all that any sects like this existed. It may be a silly topic, and I can't make any judgments about the content, but it does seem to be almost overwhelmingly thorough. If all this nonsense really is going on, then I think that a reference work should include it. I would suggest keeping it but maybe having some knowledgable peers go over it.66.1.40.242 00:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Side-splitting. A true classic of our times. Note the list which includes nocturnal bio-cycles, insomnia and poor interpersonal skills. (Aren't vampires supposed to have mad seduction powers?) If it's to be a real article, it needs NPOV'ing as well as clarification that these people are, in fact, not really vampires. In any case, the whole thing should be copied to BJAODN. Hilarious. grendel|khan 02:34, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
keep ti, also, grendel|khan, have you ever met a vampire? no? then how could you ve able to tell a real one from a faker?
Gabrielsimon 03:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but needs a huge bloody cleanup. 67.160.75.230 03:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Deleted once? Deleted Twice. Deleted chicken soup with rice! Denni☯ 04:50, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
- I get the feeling you are wrong. The page was moved twice, and I don't know how clumsily or not. Falcon 00:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Maybe it needs some work, but I've certainly heard about individuals who think of themselves as vampires, so the article doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Everyking 15:50, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There's zilch here about vampires in literature! No Bram Stoker, no Anne Rice, no Stephen King. Where do you think these wannabes get their ideas from? I do know a couple of good sites about vampires on the web that are much more thorough than this. For example, vamps are notoriously obsessive compulsive, and not all drink blood. There's one that actually eats feces. I dug up a pile of research a couple years back for a story I was writing--if you decide to keep this I could send the link(s) on to you. --The Iconoclast
- If you would post them, I will add their views. Falcon 18:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There are in fact references, http://www.reapersofblood.org/ being one. It may be a very stupid thing to become involved in this belief, but that certainly doesn't mean it is nonexistant. Falcon 00:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vampires simply do not exist, no matter how hard certain people lie to themselves that they do. It's more like a cult or a social phenomena based partially on history, horror and fantasy. Merge/move to cults or social oddities if we decide to keep it, at least. This is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for people who lost touch with reality. DarkLordSeth 00:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The article isn't supposed to be about whether vampires exist or not, it's supposed to discuss the beliefs of the cult. 67.160.75.230 01:00, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Just because people believe in something doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Or true. Vampires and vampirism are biologically and physically impossible; these poor people deceive themselves into believing that they are undead. Maybe a move to vampirism would be a good compromise? DarkLordSeth 01:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The Christians belive Jesus rose from the dead, that's biologically and physically impossible, should we delete the Christianity article?67.160.75.230 15:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It is certainly true that there are people who believe in this, which is all that matters. Indeed, there is certainly no proof that the Torah and Bible were not written by someone in an attempt to fabricate a religion, and many other happenings in faith are not possible - Moses and the Red Sea, Noah's flood and Jesus' water into wine being a few. So should we then delete every single article that states anything about belief in something impossible? And besides, when were anonymous users allowed to vote in VfD? Falcon 18:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Religions are deeper then just believing in a certain deity. It is reasonable to think that early humans saw omnipotent and omniscient entities and attributed things they could not explain to these deities. Also, note that while science has yet to prove that any deity or messiah exists, science has also yet to prove any deity or messiah does NOT exist. Vampirism is more recent, more sect-like, smaller then almost all religions and it is based on fantasy book by Bram Stoker. This is sufficient proof that vampirism as a lifestyle is based upon a fantasy novel by people who lost touch with reality, undeserving of its own article. Once again I suggest inserting this article into vampirism instead. Cheers, DarkLordSeth 12:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Just because people believe in something doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Or true. Vampires and vampirism are biologically and physically impossible; these poor people deceive themselves into believing that they are undead. Maybe a move to vampirism would be a good compromise? DarkLordSeth 01:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The article isn't supposed to be about whether vampires exist or not, it's supposed to discuss the beliefs of the cult. 67.160.75.230 01:00, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: silliness. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete please. --Yath 04:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, some people actually do believe this and follow a lifestyle based on it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the article is intentionally vague about exactly who it is that does all these things. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has fantasies about it, but even that is not substantiated. None of the links at the bottom of the article offer any substantiation; in Mother of `vampire cult' leader pleads guilty it turns out her guilty plea had nothing to do with vampirism. As for her son, Police said he led a blood-drinking "vampire" group... -- frankly I'm not willing to take their word for it. I've voted above. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- There's a valid subculture, whatever the verifiability of these (and I agree, their credibility is pretty low with me). We should have an article on that existing subculture, whether or not this content is kept/refined/removed. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- There's already five paragraphs on that group in the main vampire aricle. Once the unverified content were to be removed from this one, it would say little more than that section already does. -Sean Curtin 17:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- There's a valid subculture, whatever the verifiability of these (and I agree, their credibility is pretty low with me). We should have an article on that existing subculture, whether or not this content is kept/refined/removed. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the article is intentionally vague about exactly who it is that does all these things. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has fantasies about it, but even that is not substantiated. None of the links at the bottom of the article offer any substantiation; in Mother of `vampire cult' leader pleads guilty it turns out her guilty plea had nothing to do with vampirism. As for her son, Police said he led a blood-drinking "vampire" group... -- frankly I'm not willing to take their word for it. I've voted above. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unencyclopedic fantasies. What is factual is adequately covered by the vampire article. Andrewa 18:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as either unverifiable and already covered elsewhere. Looks like National Enquirer material. Not reliable. jallan 02:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. It's a big enough topic to deserve more than the five paragraphs it gets in Vampire. -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I distinctly remember voting on this before. My vote remains the same: DELETE. Exploding Boy 01:26, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup/rewrite. what ALargeElk said. --Conti|✉ 02:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Redundant, delete. Fire Star 15:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Morningstar2651 05:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looks okay to me, it's a large enough subculture to have something said about it on Wikipedia. I considered merging it with the main Vampire article, but I took a look and realised it would get too long and cluttered. So I'd say keep it and have it be seperate. Orion Sandstorrm 03:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
i vote keep.Gabrielsimon 21:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. However, I believe that this page has been listed a great deal of times on VfD. I would like to strongly protest its continious inclusion on this page, as it has been kept at least twice and is distinct fact from multiple sources. Whether this sect's beliefs are actually true or not is entirely irrelevant; the fact remains that there are in fact people who believe it and that is the topic of this article. Whoever comes around every 6 months or so and adds this article here needs to stop, please. Falcon 14:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
