Deletion of List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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  and almost entirely unsourced. Most of this information is entirely  - 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 IGINALRESEARCH is developed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:OR||WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH)

Comment: This is an impressive piece of  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT|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; fD is not cleanup|AfD is not cleanup. As Vanamonde noted in their delete !vote above, the subject of vampires is notable, a List of vampires|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE||WP:A)

Comment: Having read the article and the comments above, it's clear this is , 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 {{U|Vanamonde93}} that this is not rescuable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply.  is pejorative, and not a policy-based reason for deletion. Individual bits of  can and should be sourced or excised. Once again, we have a raft of s that don't actually amount to any policy-based reason for deletion, and hence really should be considered ''de facto''  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  expects that editing, rather than deletion, be used in such cases
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:OR||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ATD)

Comment: as ,  and . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: and improve. There certainly seem to be enough secondary sources to support a stand-alone article or list, fulfilling . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: this spreadsheet is inherently |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: due to  and slight  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: 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 , you find that there is extensive coverage of the topic.  For example, here's an entire book on the topic: ''https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Vampires_of_Lore/P66CwgEACAAJ?hl=en Vampires of Lore : Traits and Modern Misconceptions''.  And here's an entire https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_the_Vampire_The_Living_D/CaqE82YIh4QC?hl=en&gbpv=0 Encyclopedia, which naturally has plenty to say about the various traits in the various portrayals.  So, the usual policies apply: ; ; ; ; ; ; &c
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:ATD||WP:DELAFD||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:NEXIST||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)