Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination)

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 to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable D&D character that fails WP:GNG. Almost no mentions in reliable sources and nothing significant enough to merit its own article. Previous AfD demonstrates little evidence of independent notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: There is treatment in secondary sources: Three are in the article (or four? How is it with Pegasus?). Two of them are very short. Most important should be The Devil's Web, but I cannot say how extensive the treatment is there. To show that the controversies are not long past, I found another short section in 30 Day Spiritual Healing Revelation from 2012. If that together is not found enough for an independent article, I guess Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) would be a reasonable merge target. Daranios (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). The 30 Day Spiritual Healing Revolution article does not give significant coverage, it just gives a single sentence of in-universe coverage to Dungeons & Dragons when it seemingly lists off every single time the word Asmodeus has appeared in fiction. Dangerous Games? Censorship and Child Protection is an paper written for an Undergraduate Degree, so that clearly cannot contribute to notability since it is not a reliable source. There is no evidence his appearance in The Devil's Web was anything more than a passing mention, since it is only used in the article to essentially say "This character appeared in this book". Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) per Devonian Wombat. The secondary sources identified are trivial mentions that would not be enough to sustain an independent article. He already has coverage in the main article on Devils in D&D, so a Redirect there would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. D&D Asmodeus specifically discussed:

Irwin, W., 2014. Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Read and Gain Advantage on All Wisdom Checks. John Wiley & Sons.
Littman, G., 2014. Sympathy for the devils. The Philosophers' Magazine, (65), pp.46-53.
Nguyen, Q., 2012. She Kills Monsters. Samuel French.
Arp, R. ed., 2014. The Devil and Philosophy: The Nature of His Game (Vol. 83). Open Court.

And then there is the fun moral-panic sources that discuss D&D Asmodeus specifically.

Lewis, J.R., 2001. Satanism today. ABC-CLIO.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the first two sources are actually the same - the coverage of Asmodeus in the D&D Philosophy book is actually a reprinting of the Littman article. And the actual coverage of Asmodeus within that article that I can see is, as I mentioned in my recommendation above, extremely trivial, and basically nothing more than a name-drop. The "She Kills Monsters" book is actually a play, as in a piece of fiction, not a reliable source. The "The Devil and Philosophy Book", I can't actually find any mention of the D&D Asmodeus - I see some info on the mythological figure, and a mention of D&D, but not a discussion of the D&D version of Asmodeus. And the same goes for the "Satanism Today" book - I see a large entry for the mythological version of Asmodeus, a completely separate large entry on the moral panic of D&D, but not a mention of the D&D version of Asmodeus. Not a single one of these source would constitute any kind of coverage that could be said to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage in Littman is trivial. Is there a specific policy that says use in fiction does not contribute to GNG? I read WP:GNG and didn't see it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2020 (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.