Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords of the Nine Hells

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of the Nine Hells[edit]

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

The article is written with an in-universe perspective with almost no real-world perspective. The topic does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject that show notability, the article relies on primary sources, it has no in-line references and it's mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the sources are out there to fix this one up properly, but I don't have them myself. This would be better merged into Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) than deleted outright, however. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as a "list of characters" from any other fictional franchise, the individual characters have received RS coverage--see Asmodeus for one example. Can certainly be cleaned up, but I heartily endorse BOZ's assertion that there are sources out there for this. Note that in-line citations are not required, nor are primary sources prohibited in such an article. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Asmodeus, the gamer myth, has no third party sourcing. These characters do not show any out-of-universe sourcing in their independent articles either. This whole mess is cruft lacking third party RS. [[UserSchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Delete Per nominator. Doing a quick search engine test, I found no evidence to suggest the existence of third-party sources independent of the subject or of significant non-trivial coverage to presume notability. The article itself is referenced exclusively with primary sources, completely lacking secondary sources, and, as pointed out by the nominator, the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. There is no indication that the topic itself has real-world notability or meets the general notability guideline. I also don't think that it meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since the topic is trivial and an unneeded content fork of the article List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Jfgslo (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another WP:VAGUEWAVE !vote which makes several factual errors. In the first edition of AD&D, Devil and Demon lords were specifically not deities, in part due to the social/religious conservative backlash against D&D as a potential Satanist tool. Note that they first appeared not in Deities and Demigods but in the Monster Manual. So, now that we've established that your conclusion is inappropriate, what else is wrong with your !vote? Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VAGUEWAVE in what way? I do not know how I can be more specific. And your second point is irrelevant because all the references that you are citing are primary sources. There is still no evidence of notability and there is still no reason to keep the article as a list because all they are already in the article List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Arch-devils of Baator. Jfgslo (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per BOZ but trim a lot away. Systemic bias for people that edit Wikipedia to be DnD players (inc me) so see notability where none exists MLA (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IAR keep Not a lot of coverage in third-party reliable sources that I could find (I found some one-off mentions in about 10 books and one in a RS news article, but all passing mentions). That said, "d&d Asmodeus" pulls up over 100,000 hits, and other combinations of names from the article pulls up somewhat fewer hits (the first 50 all seems on-topic btw). That said, WP:GHITS clearly applies. But as I think removing this would make the encyclopedia weaker and there are plenty of RSes for this (just not substantial independent sources), I think IAR applies here. Plus I suspect there _is_ coverage (heck, I remember reading a book about the evils of D&D that discussed the hell mythology for a page or so some 20+ years ago). Hobit (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect/merge if a suitable parent article is found. There should not be a separate article if quick third-party sources cannot be found (WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V). A topic should be developed from third party sources, not from crufty extend of primary sources hoping for someone to add third-party sources later on (which likely won't ever happen). Better delete now and allow to recreate with proper sources, than leaving this mess (WP:NOT#PLOT) forever hanging around. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per both our notability and verifiability requirements, if there are no third party sources discussing a topic then we should not have an article on it. I've done a bit of a search, and the best I could find outside of D&D's own publications was a passing mention on a gamer website. It is not enough to wave your hands airily going "There'll be sources out there somewhere"; the onus is on the defenders of such material to prove it. This is especially true when others have tried and failed to find the required sources. Reyk _YO! 05:28, 19 February 2011 (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.