Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Devil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article basically covers the same ground as Satan. The rational for giving it its own article is based entirely on one source Jeffrey Burton Russell's book The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (1987), which state that a devil is any "personification of evil as it is conceived in many and various cultures and religious traditions." This does not appear to be universally accepted as can be seen in pages 3–4 on the introduction to Satan: A Biography. In addition, the inclusion of other beings that are not Satan as "devils" are either based on Russell or are WP:OR. For example, for Mara, the source does not call him a "devil" or "devil-like" but merely compares a story involving him and the Buddha with the story of Jesus and Satan. The article should either be deleted or redirect to Satan. LittleJerry (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I am really leaning towards a very strong keep at the moment, but I must say the nom's argument is strongly reminiscent of an opinion of redirecting to Satan. Thoughts, ? Must say though, quite a devillish nomination...  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm so devillish as to not read the last sentence. :)  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 04:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, the argument that the inclusion of other beings that are not Satan as "devils" are either based on Russell or are WP:OR is not very persuasive. I am currently reviewing the article Fallen angel for GA, and my impression is that religious terms which are a mixture of orthodox doctrine and folklore like devil and Satan hardly ever overlap exactly. This is also my impression from studying Buddhist doctrine and history.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that "devil" can overlap with "demon" as well. So you may have a point. However that would mean that devil some redirect to the Devil (disambiguation). And anyhow I think Satan works as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you have any Google Scholar or News search results to back up your claims about devil being nearly identical with Satan or demon? Tertiary sources like encyclopedias could work as well.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's page four of Henry Ansgar Kelly's "Satan a Biography" which can be previewed. Also I think the burden of proof is on the people claiming that devil is distinct from Satan or demon. Only Russell seems to support this and this is disputed by Kelly. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is insufficient proof,, you will need more meta-results. Further, the burden of giving a solid argument is on you, since you are proposing the deletion.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article itself does not give sufficient evidence that Devil is an independent concept. LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the contents of the article is not an important argument in a discussion like this. Generally speaking, if independent notability can be established, the article must be kept, even if its current contents are crap.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. While the article is not of a FA quality, it is clearly independently notable. Can't even suggest merger to Satan, as Satan is devil in Abrahamic religions. Devil is a bigger concept than Satan. It's like suggesting to delete article on God because we have God in Christianity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We actually have a Devil in Christianity article in addition to Satan, which discusses all Abrahamic religions. There is no evidence that "Devil" is used for other "evil" beings in world religions and mythology. Only Russell seems to state that. One could argue that devil is also interchangeable with demon. In that case this article could redirect to Devil (disambiguation). LittleJerry (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we could discuss more whether devil could be merged with demon. This has some merit. But I'd suggest doing this first through a merge discussion on relevant article's page(s), not here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Piotr, that devil is a lot broader a concept than Satan, who is devil only in certain religions. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What other devils are there? LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a broad topic and so is naturally difficult to define and debate but deletion plays no part in this. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * what about redirect or disambiguation? LittleJerry (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Zero compliance with WP:Before. Many sources out there. This is as content and sourcing question, and fails to even plausibly state a valid reason for Deletion, which is a last resort.  We should not inflict the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment based upon a theological or metaphysical dispute. That this may have some overlap with Satan is no reason to delete.  WP:Not paper. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:7&6=thirteen: The next time I see you make a comment like the above, I will request that you be blocked. The OP makes an interesting and fairly compelling case that this article is a WP:CONTENTFORK, and notability has nothing to do with it, so writing Zero compliance with WP:Before. Many sources out there. is very clearly inappropriate, and this isn't the only time you've done it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hijiri 88 Go for it.  My comments are well within bounds.   Pound sand and see what it gets you.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued here. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The article list concepts of the devil outside of Satan.  D r e a m Focus  23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as Devil and Satan are completely different. While Satan is described as "a devil" or "the devil" in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, the concept of Devil exists outside of Abrahamic faiths. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , what evidence is there that "Devil" exist outside the Abrahamic faiths? LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * KeepRisto hot sir (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Unholy Moly! Now, children, there was a time in the very early days of Wikipedia when Devil did redirect to Satan.  The early history of Wikipedia can be difficult to trace, but it appears that Devil was probably redirected to Satan on 28 September 2001..  Satan, which originally sat on a list of the "most requested articles" for the first few months of wikipedia's existence, was created on July 17, 2001 by an IP editor.  But a separate Devil article was created by User:Netesq on January 24, 2003 and thus has now existed independently of Satan for over *16 years* .  Wikipedia only had about 15,000 articles in late September 2001, not the 5.8 million it has today, and only hit 100,000 articles when we finally got around to creating a separate Devil article.  And we've never looked back.  I will say, however, that LittleJerry's nomination does reminds one of very early Wikipedia for being quite WP:BOLD!  Nevertheless, lest we also move Devil Dog to Satan Dog, I must urge one and all to reject this nomination and keep Devil.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  22:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you haven't explained why they should be separate. Only, that they have been for so long. LittleJerry (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I added something I thought of value to the discussion and not already present. Perhaps if anyone credibly !votes delete I shall return to focus my intellectual powers on the question of whether "devil" is a separately notable topic.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Is it not common knowledge that Satan and Devil are two seperate concepts? Makes me wonder what kids are learning in school these days. Unoc (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is crap, and needs to be either thoroughly rewritten or redirected to Satan (since that's the topic apparently almost all of this article's sourced content discusses), but there's obviously no need to remove the page history from public view. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probable keep -- The concepts of "devil" and "Satan" are not identical, but the devil article contains material on Satan, which ought to be merged to Satan. The two are similar in the Christian tradition, but not necessarily in Islam or other religions.  It is not a good article and relies too much on Russell and Gnostic Bible, but an article with as many citations as this is not WP:OR.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please read my opening statement. I explained how this is OR. The sources they use do not support (outside of Russell) a entity being a "devil". LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep and marge Satan to Devil (and not the other way round) or keep as a stand-alone. Yes, this article has issues, and although I'm not a linguist, I do know that most people use the term Devil/Satan interchangeably (sometimes with the article the e.g. the Devil). However, the noun Satan is not English, whilst Devil is (or at least closer to the English language). Since this is English Wikipedia, the English name should be used as per our naming policy. If there is no desire to marge Satan to Devil, then both articles should be kept - independent of each other. This article needs serious editing compared to the Satan article. However, our deletion process is never used to fix editing issues.Tamsier (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge it's exactly the same subject. In the Greek Old Testament Job's Satan and Zechariah 3's Satan are "ho diabolos" anyway. The New Testament ho diabolos and Satanas - about 35 uses each - don't particularly distinguish the 2 terms. What would be a whole lot more useful would be Satan in Judaism Satan in Christianity as separate articles with decent references and shrink down literal fallen angel believer J. B. Russell's books to just one of a wider set of sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the awful POVFORK of Jesus in the Talmud at Yeshu In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. DukeofPanhwa (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.