Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer Morningstar (Hazbin Hotel)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters without prejudice against moving sources over to the target. The only views here supported by P&G are those proposing Redirect or Merge. All other views seem to rely on invalid arguments about popularity, article size, or sourcing for the target page, not to mention a few !votes who were likely canvassed here, and believe this is a ballot. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Lucifer Morningstar (Hazbin Hotel)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Although there is a Reception section, the mentions are mostly passing from series or episode reviews. Guidelines such as WP:N (WP:FICTION to be more specific) say that coverage of the subject should be significant, and it doesn't seem this character has many. The article also uses many primary sources and has information that could be considered as cruft, but that's a different story. I suggest a redirect to List_of_Hazbin_Hotel_and_Helluva_Boss_characters. Spinixster  (chat!)  14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge to the character list. There's some decent bits here, but these passing mentions aren't really enough to keep the article afloat. If someone finds some proper sources for the article, I'll be willing to reconsider, but being cited only to bits of reviews isn't enough in my eyes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Anything notable about the character can be mentioned in his profile in the list article. The references are definitely not enough to warrant a full article, either. Blubewwy (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Keep — Article seems large enough along with enough references (albeit mostly passing ones) to sustain a stand-alone article. In byte size, this article is 19,000 bytes and the character list is 46,000 bytes. A true merge and not just a redirect as proposed by the nominator would keep a lot of information, while a true straight redirect would lose quite a bit of information (an article that is 41% the size of the proposed redirect location). So, I am strongly opposed to a redirect. If consensus was to evolve strongly (not weakly) towards a redirect, then consider this a neutral !vote for a merge, but no way for a straight redirect. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television.  Spinixster   (chat!)  14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep took the words out of my keyboard, I was thinking along the same lines. Also, redirecting a well-referenced article to an almost unreferenced corresponding section seems like a disservice with regard to Wikipedia's ideals for WP:Citing sources. Daranios (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Weather Event Writer and Daranios. Well-put. Original Alastorian (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the article can be redirected, and cited information can be merged there. I never said to destroy all the cited information. Spinixster   (chat!)  01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The character list page is horribly written while this page is very well-referenced. 213.233.154.159 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment To debunk all the arguments against redirecting the article:
 * Article is large enough: see WP:PLENTY. Just because an article is large in size does not mean it warrants inclusion.
 * Article has many references: see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term.
 * Redirecting the article to an almost unsourced list: this is WP:SOFIXIT level, just merge the information that was in this article when redirecting.
 * Hope this clarifies everything. Spinixster   (chat!)  01:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to note, a redirect (as you bolded and noted in your nomination) is not the same as a merge. If you wished for a merge, a merge request should have been used over AfD. Mentioning WP:SOFIXIT to that argument would potentially imply you support a merge instead of a redirect. My !vote will remain Keep, as the discussion is not about merging the article, but rather deleting it and I do not support deletion of the article or content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The AfD page clearly says Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. A merge and redirect outcome is definitely possible. Spinixster   (chat!)  02:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, wp:redirects are cheap, and if the character becomes notable in the future, someone can go back and make it. It's not like the information will forever be lost once redirected. Spinixster   (chat!)  02:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed a merge is a common outcome of an AfD. However, like has been explained above, in contrast to your nomination your current argumentation seems to support a merge rather than a redirect. In such a case a merge discussion rather than an AfD would have been the course recommended by policy.
 * Thanks for the source analysis, but I personally do not follow the "Proves notability" column. The notability guideline nowhere states that extended treatment has to be within any one specific source. I am aware that opinions on that point are divided. What the guideline does say is that the topic does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Of course the treatment must not be trivial, but I believe that e.g. praise of the performance of the character is not. In a case where the phrasing of the policy is ambiguous, I always like to look back at the intent rather than the letter, which is spelled out in WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The secondary sources collectively (supplemented by primary ones) in my view provide enough material to have a full, non-stubby article. Merging the relevant content in the target list would make for an akwardly large section there, out of balance with the rest of that list. So while I can see a merge, I remain with my keep !vote. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If praise for an actor's portrayal of a character is merely enough for the character to be individually notable, then surely characters such as Evelyn Wang or Charlie, whose actors have been lauded and won awards for their portrayals, would be notable? No, because in the end, the praise is contained within the confines of the film/series/etc. Articles such as Ngoc Lan Tran or Homer Simpson shows the character's notability via analysis of the character and/or the character's impact.
 * And no, how well the article is written does not go into play here. No matter how bad or good it is, if it's not notable, it does not warrant for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:LOOKSGOOD. Spinixster   (chat!)  12:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The critical reception section of Ngoc Lan Tran looks pretty similar to what you describe and what we have here to me. More generally, to then surely characters such as Evelyn Wang or Charlie, whose actors have been lauded and won awards for their portrayals, would be notable I actually say: Yes, if there is enough material to support a full article, and if that commentary does not fit better into the main article based simply on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. I guess we can agree to disagree on that. (Paradoxically, a side character like Lucifer here might be more suitable for a separate article than a main character based on how well their coverage fits into the flow of the article about the work of fiction.) The fact that we don't have articles on Evelyn Wang (Everything Everywhere All at Once) or Charlie (The Whale) (yet!) is not relevant for our discussion here based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for how well the article is written does not go into play here, I can't remember to have made that argument. Did I? Daranios (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You said, The secondary sources collectively (supplemented by primary ones) in my view provide enough material to have a full, non-stubby article. That is true, but that does not go into play on how the character is notable.
 * The critical reception of the Ngoc Lan Tran article is not the only thing keeping the article afloat, but even then, there's much more depth on the reception. For example, the Vulture source talks about how the character has attracted criticism and talks about the depth of the character. And of course, the character's reception section will have reviews of the film itself! I doubt any critic will write an article that goes in-depth about a random fictional character from something that has just been released. But the reviews talk extensively about the character and give the character coverage. There is also sustained coverage from the next few years after the film has been released (2019, 2022, etc) So the question is would the character be suitable for a separate page right now, when the show is in its early stages? And if these reviews are enough, would every single character in Hazbin Hotel deserve a separate page, because critics will definitely talk about these characters? Probably not.
 * I won't repeat what I said again, but here are more examples of fictional characters that are notable, just to compare:
 * Beverly Marsh from It: while the reception section is quite stubby, the character has attracted analysis and criticism, which is listed there.
 * Lady Dimitrescu from Resident Evil Village: Keep in mind I'm not comparing the quality of the article, but see how many of the reception sources are also reviews of the game itself. But many sources also comment on fans' interest in the character.
 * So basically, the question that needs to be asked is that: will the character have sustained coverage in the next few years or so? Similar AfDs such as Articles for deletion/Mickey Mouse (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) concerns contemporary sources. While there are many, many sources at the time, the Last Week Tonight version of Mickey Mouse did not get sustained coverage.
 * Sorry for the long wall of text, but tl;dr, WP:SUSTAINED. The article can always be redirected, and then when sources are available, someone can recreate it. Spinixster   (chat!)  01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is true, but that does not go into play on how the character is notable. That seems to me to be in direct conflict with WP:WHYN. Daranios (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding me. While the sources are usable to talk about things like plot, development, etc., it does not mean that it proves the character's notability. See Articles for deletion/William Afton (2nd nomination), which was deleted/redirected for almost the same reason. Spinixster   (chat!)  13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I misunderstand. If you were to look again at why we have the notability requirements, I am convinced that the article we have here does fulfill what's requested there, I've already quoted the passage. Therefore it also fulfills the intent of WP:N. Daranios (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you see the deletion discussion page of William Afton that I've linked and checked the old page, you can see that that page also has a reception section similar to this one, however, the mentions are trivial/passing. If you look at WP:WHYN, it explicitly says that there must be significant coverage, which this article does not have right now. Spinixster   (chat!)  04:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it says there there must be significant coverage. And then it goes on to explain what that means: Coverage that allows us to actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic, while of course also fulfilling the requirements of an encyclopedia like WP:ALLPLOT, use of secondary sources, etc. Do we have only half a parargraph or purely a definition of the topic? No, we do have a full, non-stubby article. Which means we have significant coverage as defined in WP:WHYN, and which means the topic is notable in my book. Daranios (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And it's not like one has to copy all of the little information into the list article. See any list of characters articles such as List of 30 Rock characters or List of Fresh Off the Boat characters Spinixster   (chat!)  12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * True, in a merge not all information has to go into the target article. But that's a backwards argument here: A merge is feasible if we cut some sourced material. But there is no need for a merge, and I see then such a cut as making the presentation less good/comprehensive than what we already have, so I see no improvement for Wikipedia here. And then this sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Daranios (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge would probably not be needed.
 * Wikipedia doesn't really have much consistency when it comes to list of characters articles. The two lists I gave are very different from each other. Whereas 30 Rock includes full information about the characters, Fresh Off the Boat only gives a summary. I personally prefer the latter, especially if it's a show that doesn't have a complicated plot like List of Breaking Bad characters, because it just simply tells us the characters, their backgrounds and their personalities, which is pretty straightforward. As far as I'm concerned, Hazbin Hotel seems to be in the middle of both, but these lists should not substitute episode/list of episode articles in terms of talking about plot, especially for a side character. Spinixster   (chat!)  01:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume when you say that a merge would probably not be needed you mean a redirect will suffice, while I mean that we have a reasonably fine article which we should kept rather than merged. So rather than compare to how other topics have been handled on Wikipedia, I suggest to go back to the most basic question: How would a redirect (or merge for that matter) benefit the users of Wikipedia as compared to the article we have now? Daranios (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: If a "reasonably fine article" is a good reason as to why an article should be kept, then we might as well make pages for all the characters, because an article is obviously better than a redirect to a short summary of the character. However, this violates WP:N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Spinixster   (chat!)  13:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We do have a solution in place that prevents us from making pages for all the characters: Enough non-trivial treatment in secondary sources. I think we just disagree if this kind of coverage can be made up from a number of shorter treatments or only from longer appearances in secondary sources. We cannot have pages for all fictional characters, because such secondary sources do not exist for all fictional characters. Therefore we do not suddenly create a problem with WP:NOTDIRECTORY if we keep this article, which has enough commentary from secondary sources. With that out of the way, we are back to the basic question: How would redirecting (or merging) the well-referenced stand-alone article we have to a very bare-bones, almost unreferenced list section benefit the users of Wikipedia? Daranios (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And as I've said above, If a "reasonably fine article" is a good reason as to why an article should be kept, then we might as well make pages for all the characters, because an article is obviously better than a redirect to a short summary of the character. However, this violates WP:N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If a user wants to find more information on Lucifer Morningstar of the show Hazbin Hotel, there's a Fandom page that does exactly that, and WP:Wikipedia is not Fandom. Spinixster   (chat!)  04:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So you have repeated your statement which I thought I had already explained about. So maybe I should explain some more: You seem to object to my phrase of a "reasonably fine article". I did not mean that as in a subjective I like the article, but rather that it is one which fulfills Wikipedia's requirements to an encyclopedic article reasonably well. WP:NOTDIRECTORY says we should avoid Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Noone is doing that here. If we were to do a listing of all characters in the series, and included the material we have here, this entry would specifically stand out as not being a simple listing entry, because it does provide contextual information in the production information and especially reception section. So again, no problem there. The existence of the article is also not asking us to create such a listing, how would it? And the article fulfills the related requirement more specifically geared towards topics within fiction, WP:ALLPLOT. As for Fandom, the wikis there generally approach things the opposite way, concentrating on plot information and primary sources. That's also the case with the specific article you've linked. Something like our reception section here is missing. So referring a person interested in more detailed plot information to Fandom is of course fine. But if we were to change this into a redirect and refer readers to Fandom, we would exactly cut out what makes this article encyclopedic. So, once more, I am still waiting for a convincing argument how hiding all the information we have now in the history of a redirect, and referring them to the list section which only has a little commentary (and that unreferenced), would benefit the readers of Wikipedia. Absent such, let's keep the article as is. Daranios (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep article per logic of replies, and character being part of main cast going forward. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:MAJORITY. Just because a character is part of the main cast does not mean the character is individually notable. WP:Wikipedia is not Fandom. Spinixster   (chat!)  01:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Research and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES suggests character is individually notable. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The mentions are passing. See WP:GNG and what I've stated above: Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Spinixster   (chat!)  02:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On coverage, disagreement. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at the sources, they're either interviews or passing mentions. I'll do a source breakdown soon. Spinixster   (chat!)  02:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Source breakdown below, to prove that the sources do not prove notability:

Please also see the points I've stated above. Spinixster  (chat!)  02:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: This could be an example of WP:TOOSOON. While it certainly appears that the article content suffices and demonstrates enough, the lack of in-depth sources on Lucifer is too great to ignore. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 02:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: This 'breakdown' reeks of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT like Daranios said, by column three getting dangeously close to WP:OPINION after I checked out the content myself to verify. Since List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters would need signficant expansion before a merge could be considered, I would throw towards keep, but would support a separate discussion on whether or not to move this to draftspace as making much more sense. 185.114.163.227 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is based on Wikipedia policies:
 * WP:N says there must be significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Passing mentions are not significant coverage, and there's only one source that has significant coverage (it's debatable, thus why I said 50/50).
 * WP:INTERVIEW says that interviews are primary sources. Additionally, Interviews says Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability. So if what is said about the character is not by the journalist but by whoever's being interviewed, it's primary and does not support a claim for notability.
 * See my discussion on character lists above. Spinixster   (chat!)  04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would recommend you consider not commenting further in this discussion. As of this message, a CTRL + F search of your username shows 18 hits, which is actual 18 unique comments by you in this smaller discussion. I think you have reached or are very close to bludgeoning the process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already said what is needed to be said, anyways. It's an WP:1AM situation now. I've cited the policies in my replies. Spinixster   (chat!)  04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are right about the sourcing situation on this article. I'm leaning Delete or Draftify on it, as per my statement above, the lack of in-depth sources on Lucifer is too great to ignore. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 12:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The sourcing seems to exist from a quick Google on the topic, it would just need one of these tags: And for a user following the tag to then add about two or three more reviews in / mention more from the existing ones. As a comment, when did we forget adding these tags is the first step ahead of spending a week arguing for / against deletion? Off of this I would say either to add this tag and Keep, or Draftify . ICOTEYE (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What sources are you eyeing? Google searches and hits on the topic don't indicate notability, and if there's any articles that indicate more significant coverage, it would be good to share this to the overall discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Negative reviews. Once we add analysis from those, this page should be plenty notable. I'll expand the reception section now. ICOTEYE (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I said I won't reply again, but I'd like to point out that some of the sources you added are unreliable/questionable:
 * The Michael Knowles Show is owned by The Daily Wire, which per WP:RSP is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Michael Knowles is also not a critic of any kind; he's a political commentator.
 * The Conservative Woman: per this discussion, this website promotes conspiracy theories.
 * Patheos is a WP:SPS, and the author is questionable.
 * There's more, but I do not feel like talking about them here would make a difference. Spinixster   (chat!)  08:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect per nom. ltb d l (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - The coverage he has received in the reception alone shows that the character is notable, whilst the fact that he already has merchandise shows the character's importance/impact out of the show. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * merchandise is absolutely not an incidactor of notability. ltb d l (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said it was, I said it showed the out of show impact DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * so it's irrelevant, then. ltb d l (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per DDoOL, obv. Page was nominated for not having a real reception, and now it has a real reception. XofSwording (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2024 (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.