Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy vampire

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.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources quoted do not establish the term "energy vampire". Consequently this article fails WP:MADEUP. There are sources that can be found on Google Books that use the term generically (such as some stress management books) but this does not establish a class of vampire as the term is used in a jocular sense. If anyone thinks that the generic jocular sense of the word needs definition then this should be on Wictionary rather than here. There may be an argument for a re-written version to be under psychic vampire if anyone were interested enough; it should be noted that any re-write should address poor quality sources included such as churchofsatan.com which fail WP:RS. Ash (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources quoted do in fact establish the term "energy vampire" or "psychic vampire". The problem would appear to be simply that the nominator rejects the sources or finds their claims incredible. They may well in fact be unworthy of belief; but like any other texts expounding the concepts of a belief system, all we can hope to do is put them in context and accept their teachings as accurately describing a belief system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reality check) I'd be interested to know which sources actually use the words "Energy Vampire" (the nomination did point out the option of moving the article to "Psychic Vampire" which may or may not be the same thing, with a lack of sources any conclusion looks like original research). According to my check of the sources:

1. ISBN 1-86389-831-X does not seem to exist on Google Books or World Cat, perhaps the ISBN has a typo? The only place I can find this quoted is in "Australian folklore, Volumes 5-8 By Curtin University of Technology. Centre for Australian Studies", which as it happens does not use the term "Energy Vampire".
2. ISBN 1578631513 does not include the words "Energy Vampire" according to a full search on Google Books,
3. ISBN 1-870450-33-7 not searchable so I can't check,
4. the website given for Robinson, Eugene, does not include the words "Energy Vampire",
5. the Washington Post article recently added does not include the words "Energy Vampire",
6. the CNN article recently added does use the words "Energy Vampire" but I would point out the direct quote "I call them energy vampires" shows that this source does not establish the term in any sort of common usage as the author thinks they made it up themselves.—Ash (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added two sources, one from the Washington Post, another from CNN which establish the terms energy vampire and psychic vampire, in the context of cultural phenomena. Whatever404 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) After a thorough check of sources I disagree, see above.—Ash (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly, the phenomenon of "psychic vampirism" is recognized within a cultural context: I am not arguing that such a thing is recognized as "real", but rather that the phenomenon, as a topic, is culturally recognized. The term that is primarily used to describe the topic could possibly be a matter of dispute, but the article's existence should not be. Whatever404 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) The nomination is for "Energy vampire" not "Psychic vampire".—Ash (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, if you think this article could reasonably exist under another title, then you should be petitioning for a rename, not deletion. Whatever404 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Smerdis and whatever--UltraMagnus (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to have some decent sources for the purpose. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ash, if you want to change the title, then argue for that, not for deletion. You're being overly pedantic, energy vampire and psychic vampire are synonyms. I found an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer that discusses energy vampires:[1]. Total guff, but notably so. A lot of sources use "energy vampire" metaphorically rather than literally. Fences&Windows 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In very common American English language use in the form of "psychic vampire." Definite KEEP. --AStanhope (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -As much as I wish this was madeup just for Wikipedia it is a notable piece of hokum that some people really believe in, sad though that is. Would propose renaming "psychic vampire" as this term is more accurate in reflecting beliefs and sources.Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick Wikipedia search for "energy vampire" shows several notable characters that are referred to as such. [2] I believe any complete book on vampires mentions them, as either energy or psychic vampires. Dream Focus 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.