Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 7 2004, kept as consensus was not reached. Discussion may be found at Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete.

Argh... I hope nobody redirects this page yet again or there will be redirection chains miles long and broken links everywhere! Twice in one day the page was moved... this must be some sort of record. Grr. Please post to talk before doing darastic things unless you just created the article in the wrong place by accident! Falcon 03:32, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

This page might be able to use a bit of wikification. Falcon 02:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page desperately needs some sanity. Is the article supposed to be fact or fiction? I'd be interested to know about the human illnesses in which origins of the vampire myth lie. If it's supposed to be fictional, this needs to be made clear and the various substrands of the mythos need to be separated. Lupin 14:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page is about a religious sect and details their beliefs. It is important in the capacity that the sect has created a new mythology on top of an old one, and is also potentially dangerous. I dispensed with fiction-clauses after the first few paragraphs for the most part, because the entire article is about a belief system. Therefore this is not, per se, truth, however it is what a relatively large community believes. However, it does not deserve seperate articles because it is really one unified topic (although a large anf foreign one). It is highly inappropriate to have more than one article about a religion or faith as that supposes that the faith is fact - wikipedia in itself is an aethiest. Falcon 17:14, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Very well. I still believe that it needs to be made far clearer that everything after the introduction is the beliefs of these sect members and not "fact". For example, the articles talks about the features of a subspecies as if it existed:

There are primarily two types of vampires; psionic (psi) and sanguarian (sang).

This is misleading to say the least. This may seem like an exercise in pedantry on my part but it seems absurd to leave the chance that someone may start reading this stuff in the middle (like I did) and actually take what it is saying as fact. Lupin 23:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is definately a valid point. I shall make changes to reflect this, but by now it is a huge job. By the way, Lupin, I am adding to this article all the time and already it is gaining information about psychology and illness (though perfectly NPOV, of course). An interesting thing I have found about this kind of article is that wikipedia itself cannot possibly avoit taking a POV; because its POV is strictly factual and neutral, it is impossible not do write an article about cults and sects like this without dismissing them as complete bunk. Falcon 03:23, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Okay... so there are people who actually believe they are vampires. I'll buy that. And they believe there are different types etc... but this article is very confusing after the first couple of paragraphs because it reads as such a fervant statement of fact. (btw, out of curiosity, have all the other infinite variations on the 'otherkin' theme got their own detailed articles like this one?) KJ 04:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They do not; most are extremely fringe however as far as they go, this one seems to be quite common. And when, and for what reason, did wikipedia limit detail on any article? I suggest reading the article over again; I spent a half-hour NPOV/aethiesing it so it did not sound that way. The reason it sounded that way in the first place is I viewed the constant reminders of what the article was to be redundant, repetitive and unnecessary. Obviously, this is not the case. And just in case you were wondering about my affiliation with this cult, it is the fact that an ex-girlfriend of mine became to it as a fly is to flypaper. Falcon 06:13, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I am adding the NPOV tag in regards to the insults towrds believers peppered throughout the article. If this is actually a religion, then it should be treated as one. I wouldn't edit Judaism or Hinduism and say "These people are likened to fools or people exhibiting symptoms of mental disease". Please remove the degrading statements. DryGrain

There is a notable difference between saying "these people are often called" and "these people are". The first, as it said in the article more or less, is simply a statement that many people denegrate the believers. The second, as is not used, is a blatant insult. Oh, and please sign your comments. Falcon 03:39, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

• However, Judaism and Hinduism are "valid" religions that have not been proven to be false. For example, while I do not believe any deity whatsoever, no one can actually disprove any major religion. There is not a single person in the world yet that has the authority to say that there is no deity, along with supporting evidence. Likewise, no one can claim that there is a deity, along with supporting evidence. That's why they call it faith, I suppose. Vampirism is an entirely different cookie; vampires have been biologically and physically proven not to exist. The idea of vampires can be traced back to Bram Stoker's literary works, which are in turn based on Vlad Tepes. There is nothing mythological about this whatsoever. What's the difference between someone thinking himself to be The Hulk and between someone thinking himself to be a vampire? Both reject their own personality and project a false image of themselves which is based on modern fictive literature. Yet the person calling himself the Hulk would be classified as insane while a person calling himself a vampire would be considered alternatively religious? Simply because a lot of people think they are vampires doesn't mean it's not a psychological disorder. :: DarkLordSeth 18:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sorry seth, you have no basis on that, and vampirism goes back far beyond good old bram stoker. you need to research more thoroughly.

Gabrielsimon 00:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. This article is biased against believers of this sect and this bias is veiled poorly behind phrases like "Some people say..." "It is widely believed that...". This article needs to have a neutral point of view towards the believers and give only factual information from an encyclopedic perspective. DryGrain 05:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In this case, the article is factually correct. It is not necessarily true that, say, demons reside in animal blood, however it is true that some members believe that they do. I don't see any bias at all; if you absolutely must have it changed, feel free. But isn't it getting a bit late, for you and for me? Falcon 05:21, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

They also have very poor interpersonal skills and are likened to pricks, or people afflicted with ADHD or a similar disorder, or attention-seeking fools.

Weasel terms. Likened by whom?

-- hey! whats wrong with having ADHD?  if you have something against it you dont know what its like to live with it.

Gabrielsimon 00:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This type of member will experience very dramatic symptoms, or at least pretend to.

Pretend...?

Notwithstanding, there appears to be a great concern about vampire slayers, who are viewed as insane, psychotic cultists (among other terms which will not be published here).

This is a natural reaction of being turned off from the cult.

When a vampire cultist becomes a parent,...

The term 'cult' is degrading to believers.

Many also claim that they often become ill when eating, however it is not medically possible for a human to survive solely on blood.

While this may be factually correct, it is still a POV statement.

It is not recommended that a person be used more than three times by the same vampire, or the prey will become inextricably bound and attracted to the vampire. No case of this has ever been noted.

It is not nessecary to say that it has never been noted.

The person will feel (or pretend to feel) unnaturally drained afterward, a symptom believed to be psychosomatic.

Pretend...?

Although it can be removed from a doctor using needles, it is mostly taken from cuts (probably because nobody wants to go to a doctor about vampirism as they would probably end up at a psychiatrist).

Let's not infer that belief in this faith is a mental illness, hmm?

Many believe they were put on Earth to set it right (nobody is specific as to exactly what they are to right).

Yet another example of small comments made to detract from the credibility of the claims of this faith.

On the other hand, cultists of this manner generally go about their lives nocturnally and in isolation anyway, and are made to feel profoundy different (partially due to psychosomatic symptoms).

This article needs a massive reworking, as these comments are merely some of the ones which immediately jumped out at me. This needs to be written from an encyclopedic perspective. And what do you mean, getting late, Falcon? DryGrain 05:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is more or less fact. When general terms are used (the ones you are calling weasel terms), it is a general reference. Trust me, it is a true one. But again, if you want to NPOV however you see fit, do so. And by getting late, I mean that it is 2349h here, and if you are in California it should be something like that. But, as it is nearly midnight and I actually have school tomorrow, I'd better go to bed. Falcon 05:48, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

'Weasel terms' is not my invention. It doesn't matter if that's your perception of them, because that is a POV. If you can reference someone semi-famous or a non-religious organization making these statements, it can be referenced in the article. Actually, I'm in PST, and its only 10:55pm, and if you had read my user page a bit closer than just looking for my contributions to butcher, you'd know I was an unemployed high school graduate. DryGrain 05:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then why don't you clean it up; most of the comments are general and have been said by a lot of people rather than by one single authority. Therefore the terms are not weasel. Falcon 03:13, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I will clean it up when I have time; the havoc you're wreaking on some other pages has me currently tied up at the moment. They were weasel terms and will continue to remain so because they are not direct quotes from anyone, and express a POV. DryGrain 05:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag, I fixed the glaring POV, although it still needs work. DryGrain 13:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why is the factual accuracy of this article disputed? Falcon 17:10, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Look at the page history. DryGrain 07:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no justification anywhere in the page history. Besides, it should have been mentioned on the talkpage. History is no place for arguments.

Wow. I wasn't aware that vampirism was quite so popular in Antarctica. Are there any actual sources for the more outrageous claims made in this article? -Sean 08:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is not altogether that prevalent there; the word "nonexistant" is certainly not filler. The statement is meant to say the belief is unheard of anywhere outside of N. America and Europe, more or less, w/o POV. There are indeed sources; Google will be able to find a myrad of them. Falcon 23:13, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Facts?

None of the references cited support any of the bizzare specific claims made in the article (i.e. "sang"/"psi" or the "astral" and "elemental" vampires); they just support the fact that such a thing as the subculture exists, which is already covered in the vampire article. Searching for these things turns up only a tiny number of hits on Google, all on message boards and personal webpages. If you can't find references for these claims, I don't think they should be included at all. -Sean Curtin 03:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== comments from Cleanup ==:It was a very contentious VfD debate. I think the consensus, such as it was, among the "keep"ers was that some stripping and huge clarifying that this is a fantasy/belief/cult/make believe thing is ok. Not sure, but it was just barely a keep by my count. I think people wanted outside references added, too. Good luck to all you brave souls who undertake it. Geogre

It would be a waste of anybody's time doing anything to this, only one place for it, and it's not on Wikipedia Giano

I'm pretty saure that several of the people who voted "Keep" never looked at the section of vampire that makes this article redundant. If this page is still on cleanup by September it should be placed back on VfD. -Sean Curtin

While I don't participate or personally know anyone that participates in such, I'm aware that it is a real phenomenon, sophisticated enough to be called a subculture. I think it does deserve an article, and more than the little snippet on vampire. Let me clean it up, and then see what you think. PMC

It would appear to me personally (by way of general observation) that, though a subculture is in fact clearly present, it is not particularily unified by any stretch. That statement should probably be worked into the article somehow. Anyway, why should we not replace the small, undetailed section in vampire with a link to this detailed article on the same subject? It doesn't appear that this article is patent nonsense, or advertising, or consistantly biased one way or another, or a particular waste of space (not that any would be saved by deletion). Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to list it again on VfD, where the debate would be a repeat of the last one and just as inconclusive. I would also like to protest the use of the amount of time an article spends in cleanup as an indicator for deletion. Falcon 03:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How the hell did this get past VFD?

I mean, seriously. MERGE this unholy piece of group-vanity to vampire or vampirism or, if people this this has any socio and psychological impact, move a brief summary of it to mental illness, describing symptoms, causes and other psychological information. In itself, this article serves no good whatsoever apart from sub-cultural vanity from people who think they are important. Quite a few people claim they are God. They are not a "sub-culture", they are known as a bunch of fcking idiots. Same thing for people who claim they are vampires. I'm ASHAMED that worthless crap such as this is allowed to remain in a respectable encyclopedia. :: DarkLordSeth 01:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seth, are you kidding me? This is real. This is massive. This *happens*. You may think they're crazy (And I am inclined to agree with you) but there are tons of people who think they're vampires, and this is how they live. This is more important and certainly more prevalent than (for example) Megatokyo will ever be. The 'Pedia documents real-life phenomena, and this is certainly one. "Vampiric lifestyle" gets upwards of 10K hits on Google. "Vampire lifestyle" gets nearly 400K. That's 410K hits on Google. "Megatokyo" only gets 290K.

The article may well suck. It looks like it could use a little cleanup, yeah. But it is valid encyclopedic material and it belongs in this encyclopedia. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|]] 07:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• There are also tons and tons of people who claim they are God. Are these people important or relevant? No, just like those losers who claim they are vampires, they are irrelevant and unimportant from most perspectives. Just because a large group of people is stupid doesn't mean it's actually important or relevant information. At best this can been seen as a sociological article about influence of Bram Stoker's literature on the modern day society, but that'd still leave it unworthy of it's own article, especially considering most details here are already available in the vampirism article.

Also, google hits are not the sole answer to the question wether an article should be allowed to live. It's part of the answer, yes. In this case, it's a part of the answer that says yes. But is this subject not written already, elsewhere? Isn't it a kind of sociological disorder ? Isn't there plenty of info on vampires and vampirism already? Or enough details about sub-cultures in general? Besides, is this really relevant? Vampirism has been disproved; it's physically and biologically impossible to be a vampire which we know thanks to modern day science and biology. This article is a summary of existing work bound together by lies, ignorance and escapism from modern society. Salvage what can be salvaged, then pound a big wooden stake of Deletion through this. :: DarkLordSeth 04:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seth, just because it scares yoiu or offends you in some way doenst mean you should try to make it go away, casue it wont go away.

Gabrielsimon 21:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no major subculture of people who think they are God. While I'm inclined to agree that there's something wrong in these people's heads, 410,000 Google hits is notable. The large amount of material in this article would cause a lot of trouble if merged to another article. And finally, it sounds like you have a problem with an article about people who believe things that are false - sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Nickptar 21:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

besides, who's to say if its false or not. thier beleifs arent yours to judge. Gabrielsimon 21:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from VfD

On 5 Mar 2005, this article was again nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vampire lifestyle for a record of the discussion.