Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconnu (World of Darkness)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"

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.

[edit] Inconnu (World of Darkness)

The result was Merge to Masquerade_society#Inconnu (non-admin closure). SilkTork *YES! 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)"

Inconnu (World of Darkness) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional vampires. Contested prod. Prod was removed with no other alteration to the article, nor explanation on the edit summary or talk page other than "I don't agree with this deletion." Online sources don't (obviously) cover everything, but searches seem to reveal only fan sites (and other unrelated things like an inn in Canada, a band, etc.). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 23:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - with some other, more established page of this notable franchize. While it it is true that notability is not inherited, major plot elements of hugely notable works have historically found a place in Wikipedia, if not as stand-alone articles then certainly as sections of other entries. ◄Zahakiel► 23:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I would not be averse to a large merger of this article and many other similar ones in Category:Vampire: The Masquerade (quite a lot of which I have prodded today). Together some coherent article might be possible that even has proper sources. I, however, am not familiar enough with that RPG to do such a thing, and these articles have been around for a year and a half or so with no references outside of original source material. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, I noticed your prod work :) I've de-prodded several (but not all) of them; I agree with you, they've lain fallow for a long time, and need some work. Hopefully the discussions generated by these AfDs will activate this. If not, and no one is willing to work on them, best they be removed until someone wants to recreate them in a usable state. Either way, Wikipedia benefits. ◄Zahakiel► 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, I probably shouldn't have mentioned I prodded a bunch of stuff. Now it will lie around not being improved for an even longer time. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you mean my activity in particular, I noticed your prods before you said anything in this discussion. If you just mean in general, I hope that's not the case... I agree with your concerns, and think they should all be improved, merged, or removed. ◄Zahakiel► 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge The vampire sects in this setting are notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can you provide some references that demonstrate this? Otherwise, how do we know this? --Craw-daddy | T | 11:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course I can. I shall add a reference to the article but please be aware that AFD is not cleanup and it is better to tag such articles for improvement before bringing them to AFD. Better yet is to add material for a topic that you know something about. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I prodded the article first, and the prod was removed with no other comment, alteration, or explanation on the article's talk page, other than "I object to this deletion". I agree that AfD should not be a tool to force cleanup, and that was not my intention here. And I do add material for topics that I know things about (as well as things that I know little about, having helped promote an article to GA, and save others from deletion). Witness, for example, my additions to Z-Man Games. But all that has no bearing here, as we're talking about this particular article. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The reference you added clearly falls in the realm of "trivial" as it's a brief passing mention in a book's glossary. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. It is, in any case, a mere token. There is torrents of material out there for this franchise which spans role-playing, books, card games, cartoons, computer games, tv shows, LARPs and who knows what else. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And again I ask, how much of that directly addresses the Inconnu, from the point of view of that required in WP:N? I know there's "tons of stuff" about this franchise. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Inclusionism vs deletionism: The Eternal Struggle. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There's loads about the franchise, but not independent stuff about each sect, clan, etc. SamBC(talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not the requirement., There just has to be substantial coverage of each, not a separate publication on each.DGG (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that was; I'm saying that, as far as I can tell, there isn't any noticeable independent coverage of each sect, clan, etc. Of course there's lots of mention in sourcebooks, but that's not really independent coverage :) SamBC(talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge not sure where yet, but I think what we could really do with is a mass-merge (leaving redirects) off all of these sorts of articles, and not just VtM or WoD related stuff, either, there's loads of instances of this sort of thing with RPG and fantasy/sci-fi related stuff. SamBC(talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And what would this mass-merge achieve apart from wasting our time? Note that others such as User:TTN went down this road and found themselves sanctioned by Arbcom. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And that's why we're starting to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games, possibly with the idea of proposing something at WP:PM. Wasting your time? How about providing articles that actually have sources and demonstrate their notability? Don't violate WP:WAF and/or WP:PLOT? --Craw-daddy | T | 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You claim to be an advanced mathematician. In my experience, the mathematics articles are poor quality and rarely have sources or inline citations to justify their intricate statements. Since the accuracy of mathematics is of some importance in the real world, while the accuracy of fiction is not, your time would be better spent improving the maths articles. Deleting this article helps in this project in no way. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should I when I can help edit articles like this Ogre? I have never played that game, nor ever owned a copy of it, yet I helped make it into a GA. But this is again besides the point and has nothing to do with the notability of the article under question. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ogre is a nice little game and the article on it looks good - thanks for your work on it. I'm still not seeing how tearing down other game articles helps to creates such fine articles. The general idea of Wikipedia is that you start with stubby imperfect articles and turn them into good ones. Deleting articles obviously aborts this process and should only be done in hopeless or problematic cases. This article is neither. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment At the risk of repeating myself, where's the information about notability? Just because V:TM is a major RPG (which I'm not disagreeing with, it should be noted), that doesn't mean that every vampiric sect or clan in the game is notable. Where's the references to say this, now that the article has been around for almost a year and a half? I don't object to a merge, but as is even with a merge, there's noting to denote notability about this clan of vampires in the article in its current form. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Sounds like this is rather non-notable even in-universe. And it shows no general notability on its own, so I don't think there should be a separate article. Merging many of those articles sounds like a good idea though, ideally removing stuff which is against WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE along the way. --Minimaki (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Which, beyond the opening sentence of the article and two other brief ones, seems to be everything. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with a Redirect somewhere like Sects in Vampire the Masquerade. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least Merge under Sects in Vampire the Masquerade or the like. The sect (and directly from user-Jhattara; "e.g. Sabbat (World of Darkness), Anarchs, Black Hand (World of Darkness) and Camarilla (World of Darkness)") should be kept as they are all important to the in-game universe. Notability can come from official sources (the core rulebook, and in many supplements)! (if I wasn't moving I would try to fix it myself, but I won't have Internet access again till June) Noremon (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, notability absolutely can't come from the original sourcebook. It requires secondary sources that specifically discuss the Inconnu as notability isn't inherited from Vampire: The Masquerade (which is quite notable, and I don't contest that). Basically all of these "keep" votes seem to ultimately be WP:ILIKEIT. Where is the evidence of independent reliable secondary sources? --Craw-daddy | T |
it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged. It also states subordinate notability sometimes may not be inherited from parent notability, but that sometimes that is the case. For something that is introduced in official material and later supplemented such as with the Sabbat & the Inconnu that is also a major device for setting I think that the notability is inherited. If you are looking for other sources not from official material then simply do a search on google and you can find many fansites that can give notability to just about any of the aspects of this RPG. Here are just 2 on the Inconnu Patman-Sects-Inconnu & Inconnu @ VirtueVerseNoremon (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge the various vampires. The usual compromise. why not do these things away from AfD. DGG (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (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.