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 List of demons in the Ars Goetia. Redirecting all to List of demons in the Ars Goetia. Content can be merged at editor discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zepar

[edit]

(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; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon 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 religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for identical reasons:

Note: I have integrated 4 more articles to this AfD bundle where the comments below were duplicated on the individual existing AfDs and the articles are in an identical state.Ash (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without Prejudice to Merge Anything notable should go to the main lesser key article. Clear content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge without removing content (i.e., just paste them into the same page). Google search reveals a ton of results for just one of these; I know the google test is not super-reliable, but 3 million hits leaves plenty of wiggle room. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Like I've said on some similar pages, I've been meaning to get to it but I'm a horrible procrastinator. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge all of these to the main work. The specific demons in this particular body of literature are not of sufficient encyclopedic significance. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thost G-hits probably all point to either amateur goetic websites or to the same 1-2 primary sources that reference these demons originally. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon - The article The Lesser Key of Solomon contains no suitable location to which the contents of these articles could be merged. Dumping 11 paragraphs of detailed descriptions of 11 demons (out of 72) would bring great imbalance to the article and set the stage for having similar paragraphs added for the other 61 demons. If there is consensus is to preserve this content on Wikipedia, then the place for it would be Ars Goetia (currently a redirect) or List of demons in the Ars Goetia. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of demons in the Ars Goetia created. Ash (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Merge all to the list. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. Together, they may be encyclopedic, but individually are far from notable. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (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.