Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil (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 keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing particularly notable about devils and demons in D&D compared to other media. A crufty article that is almost entirely primary sourced, except for a one sentence mention about religious groups being angry over the use of the term "devils". Re: The previous AfD, it was nothing besides a pile-on of WP:ITSIMPORTANT "keep" votes without substance.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not going to excuse what this article looks like now. As I've said in other recent D&D AFDs, the entire topic space is basically showing the ugliness of shifting project attitudes about fiction and sourcing, combined with up to a decade of deferred maintenance. But while there are quite a few (okay, many) D&D creature articles destined for deletion or merger, some are legitimately notable. This? Almost certainly one of those. There are quite a few sources discussing the involvement of the D&D devils in the roleplaying game industry moral panic, including coverage of then-TSR's decision to expunge them (only to bring them back later). There's a little of that sourced currently, some more hiding out over in Dungeons & Dragons controversies, and more in print sources not currently being cited (Shadis #7–8, etc.). Furthermore, there's discussion of D&D's devils in reliable sources in other contexts. In particular, Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Read and Gain Advantage on All Wisdom Checks (ISBN 978-1-118-39762-6; and, yes, I know it's a silly title, but it's a Wiley-Blackwell published philosophy book) dedicates literally pages to discussing the structure of D&D's Nine Hells, the devils thereof, and how such entities might inform our philosophical examination of free will. More sources are all but certain; I'm really just digging into the nearly 50 years of literature on D&D topics in an effort to re-source and rewrite our coverage of this topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that it's the "Devil" creature type that is notable then, and not Baator? Because from what you said, it seems that Baator is the potentially notable article here, given the structure of the Nine Hells is discussed. Are Devils really independently notable enough to have an article separate from that, and for both things to have their own article?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the quick answer here is that I don't know. The D&D topic space has a lot of duplication right now. If we have a source discussing the philosophical underpinning of D&D's devils, does that support an article on the devils, or on their plane? It... depends on the sources. Maybe both? Maybe not. In the last decade, no one has systematically tried to organize, condense, and properly source this stuff, and access to sources doesn't make it easier. Offhand, personally? I'd guess that the D&D devil is a notable topic, with the plane itself mentioned in context and in some sort of Cosmology of Dungeons & Dragons article that doesn't actually exist yet. In part, that's because the moral panic component of coverage was absolutely about the devils and not their origin plane (which wasn't even really written yet). Anyway, I'm sure we could randomly merge this article to that one, or vice versa, but that doesn't make the job of actually improving the encyclopedia any easier. It's just more work once I've got the sources all lined up to write from. Oh, and just because, here's another relevant one:, which is also probably going to contribute substantially to the fundamental rewrite that needs to happen over at Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). That was a lot of words to say that I really can't speak to the ultimate fate of this article title, much less its contents... but that deletion really isn't the answer here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Userification is also an option if the article's sources would be helpful in a possible rewrite. All I know is, the current article has been non-notable since 2006. For all we know, it will get rewritten in 2029. In the meantime, it's clearly unencyclopedic in its current state. I have no opposition to putting it in userspace, a draft or what have you.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per the arguments of Squeamish Ossifrage, and also noting that we have the review in White Dwarf magazine, and the "Season of the Witch" book as a place to start for sources, worst case scenario would be a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters rather than deletion. Also, noting that two respondents in the previous AFD identified additional sources for this topic. BOZ (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Squeamish Ossifrage and BOZ - The article is adequately sourced and IMHO the subject here meets GNG. Also keep as per the previous AFD. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Soft delete: make into a disambig. Squeamish Ossifrage makes an interesting point about connection to Dungeons & Dragons controversies, but the article as written has not even one sentence alluding a connection. And if its sole claim to fame, as argued above, is said connection, then we don't need a POVFORK. This could become a disambig to said controversy, and the whatever list of D&D monsters mentions it, probably the one mentioned by BOZ above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the arguments/potential sources brought forth by Squeamish Ossifrage and BOZ. -- Daranios (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The Devils of Dungeons and Dragon specifically were an important part of the moral panic surrounding the game. .  Thus additional specificity beyond the 'controversies' article is extremely helpful to readers.  Also, as  Squeamish Ossifrage's perspective is a strong one regarding articles in this Wikiproject.  Anyone have Playing at the World?  It probably can contribute to the debates in this recent flurry of D&D deletions. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. It could use a refresh to bring it in line with current article standards but as others have mentioned devils are directly connected to the moral panic around the game. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Squeamish Ossifrage. /Julle (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2019 (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.