Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aim (demon)


 * 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. merge anything useful if you like Spartaz Humbug! 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Aim (demon)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I created this article some time ago with information found in a disambiguation page. I am not too bothered about creating a redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon, but would that mean that Wikipedia loses info on this particular demon, as it is not covered in the parent article? Also, is it suggested that all 72 demon articles be deleted, or just this one?--Commander Keane (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The same rationale applies to the other articles. I'm not going to blanket AfD but may chisel away at those for which no other unique information exists beyond that already included or easily merged into the main article. I have not checked all these articles so there could well be some demons for which a clear rationale exists to retain a split article (such as appearing in several other texts). As for non-trivial unique information, if suitably sourced then it should be merged into the main article - if the consensus is to delete the split article. Obviously a line or two of interesting description or background on a demon would be easily merged but several paragraphs of well-sourced relevant detail is probably a rationale to keep or improve rather than merge.—Ash (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect I've been planning on sitting down one day and merging the figures not mentioned in any sources besides the Lemegeton and Pseudomonarchia Daemonum with the parent article, but I'm a horrible procrastinator. As for other articles, some of them do meet notability guidelines, such as Astaroth. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. These articles are probably going to always be slight stubs, since most of them are only known through brief descriptions in the primary sources.  The descriptions of them in the sources are brief enough that they could all be included in a single article.  He sets cities, castles and great places on fire, makes men witty in all ways... - wow, we have some of the same hobbies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge all such stubs to a new List of demons in the Lesser Key of Solomon. This is essentially a fictional character in a book who is not shown to have notability outside his work of fiction. Such entries should be deleted per WP:N, or at most merged into a list like List of Star Wars characters. This would however need some rewriting to make the description reflect that this is a fictional or mythical being, not a real entity (see WP:WAF).  Sandstein   20:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete without Prejudice to Merge Anything notable should go to the main lesser key article. Clear content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.