Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbas the Demon of Fear

Barbas the Demon of Fear was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Huge unwikified textdump, looks suspiciously like a copyvio, but I couldn't find any key phrases on Google. Anyway, delete as fancruft -- Ferkelparade &pi; 14:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into wherever is appropriate for bad guys on Charmed & REDIRECT. --Phil | Talk 16:25, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Turn off your TV when you have the computer on. Just because TBS showed that episode on Friday night doesn't mean you need to hurry off to an online encyclopedia.  Leave articles for real historical and theological thought, not TV shows.  Delete.  When fans cross from invention to invention that piggybacks on real mythologies and theologies, I do not like redirects.  It's like Confessor, above:  there is a real article to be written about a real practice and position.  The same is true of angels, demons, and devils in the Christian tradition, etc.  If we can't redirect, we can't merge and delete, since that's an illegal vote.  Therefore, delete every time something like this happens. Geogre 16:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there a real "Barbas the Demon of Fear" in Christian demonology? Delete, or redirect to Karl Rove. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with List of Charmed Evil Beings (I think).  We already have an article on the "real" mythological demon at Barbas. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. jni 16:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps redirect to Barbas, if the "Demon of Fear" bit is at all legitmate for the "real" demon. If there is no true context for the particular moniker outside of "Buffy" or whatever, then just delete. And why is "merge and delete" not a valid vote? I can think of a few cases where it would make sense. -R. fiend 02:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can think of a lot of cases where it makes sense. In the case of things like this -- where a tiny little topic from an ephemeral source gets written.  However, it's not compatible with the GFDL:  If the words of Sir Fanboi are used, then Sir Fanboi's contributions have to be credited in the article history.  Therefore, "merge and delete" is possible only if someone wants to take the pain and time to hand-insert the author's contributions into the history of the target article.  My feeling is that most of these authors put themselves at peril, that it is an heroic effort for us to make up for their misjudgment by performing merges at all, so, if they write on a non-encyclopedic topic, they risk deletion. I'd like to be nicer about it.  Geogre 03:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but how is this different from a merge without a delete? If someone merges Fanboi's material, then it's attributed to the merger, is it not? And how does it matter who's attributed? If all contributions to wikipedia are free for the taking by anyone then why is attributing it to an anonymous pseudonym important? -R. fiend 06:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm with you. However, unless we tell people that their work might be moved about without attribution, which we currently don't, we can't do that.  The difference from a merge and redirect, which is all that's supposed to happen, the redirect page has the contributor history.  I also agree that anonymous IP's are not people I worry about crediting much, and that's why I'm amazed at the people who consistently say that all substubs should be merge and redirected so as to preserve the history.  Indeed, someone on Votes for Undeletion was avid that a -bot contributor get history credit for creating, "Movie X starred A B and C."  Geogre 14:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge, note fictionality and source. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:16, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. Indrian 06:14, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.