Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seere

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 Redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seere

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

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria ~~as a fictional character~~; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in Ars Goetia. The article is unlikely to ever become more than a one-liner as no other sources say more about this character than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every ~~fictional~~ character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon Agree with nominator but feel a redirect best solution. We may want to also make sure other non-notable demons from this grimoire haven't got their own articles.Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, this nomination is too flawed to even proceed with; a demon whose existence is revealed by a grimoire is not a "fictional character" no matter what scientistic sceptics may say; that's just bias against a belief system talking. It would appear from the Lesser Key of Solomon page that entries have been created for each of these named demons. Their existence is revealed by a source that's pretty much incontestable in the field. I wouldn't mind seeing all of the demons listed in a table rather than in separate articles, but this nomination proceeds from an obviously false premise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reword of nomination) I have struck the word "fictional" from the nomination as per your objection. The nomination was not based on the premise of the demon being fictional, the nomination was based on notability and that the article is a content fork and so remains valid.—Ash (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sources, my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flauros. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with respect to Ihcoyc the majority of the demons in the Lesser Key, excluding a few who were drawn from pre-existing mythology (such as Belial, who is clearly independently notable and who is a demon referenced in the Goetia), are only notable within the context of being demons mentioned in the lesser key. The issue here is not whether we treat the lesser key as a work of fiction, as a valid text on ritual magic, or as a religious text - the issue is whether this particular demon is notable in any way other than as "a demon mentioned in the Goetia". I don't think it does. So we should be re-directing and merging; not keeping and not deleting. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Simonm223. Unless lots of othe rbooks discuss this demon, then there seems little point in having a separate list for this and other non-entities.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:58, 24 October 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.