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 merge and redirect, which was already done. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osyluth[edit]

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

I prod tagged this with "Directory-like listing of non-notable fictional demon. Sources on page are drawn from within the D&D books, are as such are primary. Primary sources are good for meeting WP:V, but not for WP:N. This article would need more than one third-party source to meet notability requirements." An IP user removed the prod without comment. My rational in the tag still applies. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion was redirected by Webwarlock to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) on 2008-01-04. This is the version of the article brought to AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: if this is closed as 'delete' the history should be deleted and the redirect recreated. There appears to have been no merge. See also: diff to redirect. --Jack Merridew 09:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, D&Dcruft. Not notable outside of the D&D universe. Lankiveil (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete No out-of-universe sources to show notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm --4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By out-of-universe I mean from a source that isn't part of the D&D mythos. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Notable and sourced. Deletionist disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Deleting all these crufty fiction articles is sure making all the non-fiction articles look superb. AnteaterZot has only been editing since August 16, 2007. It seems most of these deletionists are n00bs who don't know the true spirit of Wikipedia and are too lazy or unsophisticated to write or improve articles, so they take joy in deleting and destroying them instead.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid calling people 'n00bs', as that can constitute a personal attack. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bugger off.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted No third party sources (so it fails WP:N), written in-universe (see WP:IN-U). IP disrupting Wikipedia by removing all tags from Anteater, attacking editors in AFDs, and calling people who think that articles which fail policies "deletionists". TJ Spyke 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, another deletionist troll. These deletionists' votes should just be counted all together as one, since they are all just a single hive mind.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the above ip for 48 hours for disruption and personal attacks, here & at multiple other pages.. DGG (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete idiot IP speaks for itself. JuJube (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And the behavior of that person does not excuse your behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N. Tiptoety ^talk 08:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per verifiability and notability of D&D. Also, what's with the language in these D&D discussions? I just came from another one that was similarly to the above ith the "idiot" comments, etc.? Please everyone maintain civility. If these D&D ones are so polarizing, perhaps we should take a break from them or something. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• D&D is notable, that doesn't mean everything in D&D is notable enough to have their own articles. This article doesn't establish any notability (the only two sources are both primary sources from companies that own the franchise, and primary sources only count for WP:V, not WP:N). There's no polarizing, it was just an IP who liked to troll. TJ Spyke 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this stock character has no notability outside of the D&D pantheon (can this the correct collective noun?) of Devils, let alone any notability in the real-world.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment I believe the collective noun to be a Pandæmonium of Devils.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect - the best place for this is a small summary on Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). For real world, well I have never met a bone devil in the real world and really don't need too. Web Warlock (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per BOZ. This didn't need to go up for AfD, it should've been merged straight to the Devils article, no questions asked. I don't really know why stock monsters have been getting their own articles. It's silly at times, but this crusade to cleanse the Wikipedia of D&D articles is even sillier. Stop bringing these things up for deletion. Fix them. If you can add a template, you can add a redirect. This is just people not liking something they find, and being too lazy to do anything about it themselves. Howa0082 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The excuse I've been hearing a lot of is "If I merge it, someone will just revert it." How will you know until you try? I'm sure that doesn't happen 100% of the time, so why not make that tags/talk page Step 1, redirect Step 2, PROD Step 3, and AFD Step 4. The guidelines pretty much spell out that this is the way to approach things. BOZ (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Taking the Wikipedia maxim "be bold" I went ahead and edited Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) and set up the redirect to it. This can now be closed. Yes this should have been done but it is obvious that these AfD tags are added without anyone carefully reading or understanding what is in the article. Web Warlock (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Jolly good show!  ;) BOZ (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not sure this is advisable, and although you mean well, this action is perhaps presumptuous. Effectively you are hiding the article from further comments; whether they are keep or delete, you are preventing people from reading the article and making their own minds up. I would recomend restating the artilce until the debate is closed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I didn't do the redirecting on Verbeeg; on that one, WebWarlock merged the text into the other article, so the closing admin presumably saw that and just redirected it. I imagine the same will happen here, unless the closer goes with a hard delete instead. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:FICT. Fancruft. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Fails WP:EVERYTHING as others have said above. And thanks to Gavin for the link. --Jack Merridew 09:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect Normally I find deletionism to be a disruptive blight on wikipedia. However, that said, in this instance I don't feel that osyluths as a subtype of baatezu need an article of their own beyond the scope of the larger 9 Hells of Baator and Devils article. Frankly there isn't enough information on them as a subtype to justify their own article.Shemeska (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons), as already done. Is not sufficiently notable on its own. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2008 (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.