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


 * 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   keep. Consensus is that the sources are sufficient to show notability. Kubigula (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability - no significant coverage in secondary sources. Claritas § 15:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). I've found some trivial mentions, but nothing substantial. Still, possible search term, and should be included in that list. —Torchiest talkedits 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to all the new sources added in the last few days. —Torchiest talkedits 22:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No opinion yet: This independent source analyzes the real-world impact of the use of fiends in (A)D&D in general, and on page 21 and following also a bit about Asmodeus specifically. Maybe someone can use it to improve the article and clarify notability. Daranios (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an independent source, but it is an undergraduate level thesis, which does not qualify as a reliable source, and it mentions Asmodeus only once. Not significant coverage--Claritas § 20:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. But wait! If you're gonna delete/merge Asmodeus, who's like the main dude, or the Arch-devil of hell, then what about all the other devils. Like:
 * Baalzebul, Dispater, and Geryon. The imp, a frequent servant of devils.
 * At least with these we're still in the Arch- or Prince- or whatever-big-guy category. But then we also have:
 * black abishai, blue abishai, green abishai, red abishai, and white abishai (lesser devil), the bearded devil (lesser devil), the spined devil (least devil), the princess of Hell Glasya, the dukes of Hell Amon, Bael, Bitru, Hutijin, and Titivilus, and the arch devils Belial, Mammon, Mephistopheles, and Moloch. Dozens of unique devils appeared in a two-part article by Ed Greenwood, including the greater devils Bist, Caim, and Nergal, the dukes of Hell Agares, Alocer, Amduscias, Arioch, Balan, Bathym, Biffant, Caarcrinolaas, Chamo, Focalor, Gaziel, Gorson, Herodias, Machalas, Malphas, Melchon, and Merodach, and the princesses of Hell Cozbi, Lilis, and Naome
 * (ok, some of these are circular links, but most are not) And then the Dukes, let's not forget the Dukes:
 * and the dukes of Hell Abigor, Adonides, Barbas, Barbatos, Bele, Bifrons, Bileth, Buer, Bune, Morax, Neabaz, Rimmon, Tartach, Zagum, and Zepar, the princesses of Hell Baalphegor, Baftis, and Lilith, the chancellor of Hell Adramalech, the queen of Hell Bensozia, and the inquisitor of Hell Phongor
 * We need a good ol' fashioned deletionist crusade against Hell me thinks! Volunteer Marek 21:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Claritas is nominating fictional things from television series and from video and r&ocirc;le playing games. The Asmodeus from Hell is at Asmodeus, of course.  This is the Asmodeus from Dungeons and Dragons.  Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the push to merge and redirect. This is a singular entry with significant unique information, as are any of the other entries under "Devil".  You can't possibly store ALL of the unique information under one heading, so I presume information will be lost in the merge.  What kind of encyclopedia goes out of its way to REDUCE information content?  If you want to stay ahead of Google, you can't backpedal on providing more, and complete, information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drexxell (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep pending a search for sources, but merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) otherwise . BOZ (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to straight Keep, per Patricia Pulling source found by Torchiest and good faith that there may be others like it. BOZ (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article already has plenty of sources and it is easy to find more such as Wizard's Presents which tells us that "Since the publication of the 1st Edition Monster Manual, Asmodeus has stood out as one of the greatest villains in the D&D game...". Warden (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not independent, published by the creators of the game. Claritas § 18:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Current sources 2, 3, and 12 appear to be independent, reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they contain no significant coverage of this character. --Claritas § 12:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources 2 and 3, which were already in the article, are just trivial listings, but the new source 12 I added qualifies as significant coverage, and could easily be mined for more in some kind of reception section. I'm guessing there could be similar such sources, especially from books and newspapers in the 1980s, when the anti-D&D hysteria was at its peak. —Torchiest talkedits 14:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep added 2 sources from Judges Guild and 2 from Green Ronin. I have two more books sitting on my desk at home and there is of course all the Pathfinder books. Web Warlock (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * found another one. Web Warlock (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * and another. Web Warlock (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep Back in the 90s when I used to play D&D, this character was one of the most noteable and powerful creatures for high level campaigns. Notability is not temporary. Also per the detailed coverage in sources, especially per the ones added by Web Warlock. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As usual, no proof of notability. All sources are either primary or contain only trivial mentions. And as usual, too many D&D fans seem to intentionally ignore the GNG requirements for notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that you have not actually read any of these sources your opinion is meaningless. Web Warlock (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that we're not on a wikia for obsessive D&D fanatics my opinion actually means much more than yours.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I research this topic like I do any other topic here or elsewhere. The PhD I have pretty much makes my opinion better. Web Warlock (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we're on wikipedia, a serious project. Your "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" game belongs in a playground, not here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Amusing given you were the one who let fly with "obsessive D&D fanatics" above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, there it is, the real reason many deletionists are so gung-ho about trying to get rid of popular culture articles; "but, but, but, this is a serious project, we're supposed to have articles about math, science, medicine, art, religion, and history... I can't stand it that we have so many articles about movies, games, toys, and comic books - I have to do something about that..." You can't satisfy people with this sort of attitude, because they don't want this material here at all, no matter how many good sources you can find, because they will always argue against you and want to delete or marginalize the material because they don't want it here in the first place. The best thing you can do is to improve an article enough that their opinion is drowned out, because they will never change a vote to keep or remove their delete or merge vote once they get one on there. They think that the inclusionists/fans are the ones here to ruin Wikipedia by including material that the serious encyclopedia crowd doesn't want, but it is really these sort of uncollaborative contributors who are doing the most damage against subjects that people really do want to read about. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep has significant out-of-universe discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Only trivial and primary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * your bias is showing. Explain how any of resources added are trivial.  Web Warlock (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they only mention the name once and don't elaborate on it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Have you read all of these? Web Warlock (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2012 (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.