Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer in popular culture


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucifer in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced trivia and topic itself is already far better covered in Satan in popular culture. Created by known (and now blocked) sockpuppet. Fails WP:N and WP:V. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge With Satan in popular culture (which is, itself, not very well referenced). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Satan in popular culture. SMSpivey (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and this one shouldr eally have been done outside of AfD as a requested merge, its obvious enough. DGG (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Satan in popular culture. ¨¨ victor   falk  05:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Satan in popular culture. There are still a handful of duplicate In popular culture article, hopefully these can get sorted out soon. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject has attracted and been covered by scholars in published books or merge and redirect as cited above, but perhaps merge both the Lucifer and Satan in popular culture articles to one on The Devil in popular culture? Also, it should be noted that we actually have separate articles on Lucifer and Satan and so a case could be made for having separate "in popular culture" articles as well.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment unless theres some distinction I;m not aware of it sounds like all three articles should be merged. Artw (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination obviously fails WP:BEFORE - the article didn't even have a talk page, let alone discussion. And a merger may not the best result as many references make specific play on the name, e.g. Lucifer's Hammer. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Although often treated as synonyms Satan and Lucifer are not synonyms. Similarly, "Lucifer in popular culture" and "Satan in popular culture" are not synonyms.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Nominator asserts that the article was created by a known and blocked sockpuppet. I checked.  I don't think that is what is said at Suspected sock puppets/YourLord (3rd).  FWIW this article was created after the individual was accused of sockpuppetry.  For what it is worth the person who started the article made exactly one edit to it.  Close to two dozen edits were made prior to the nomination.  So, the sockpuppetry allegation is irrelevant to discussions as to whether I am not going to speculate on why nominator focused on the sockpuppetry allegation.  I will state it is a lapse from complying with the goal of focusing on issues, not personalities.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted it because the article was a CSD candidate for being created by a blocked user (and it isn't an allegation, it is confirmed). The bulk of the article is what he created then, with IPs adding a few more unsourced "examples" which is common in all such popular culture things. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) The sockpuppetry investigation concluded that there was not enough evidence to conclude he was a sockpuppet. That sounds like he was cleared to me.  (2) WRT your claim: "the article was a CSD candidate for being created by a blocked user" -- really?  How come the the log of actions again User:Omegafouad is empty?  It appears to me that you made a serious lapse from policy, and that you really owe the community an open acknowledgment of that.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't own anything and I haven't made a lapse from policy. The fact is he has ADMITTED to being a sock puppet and to having those socks, a fact you apparently hadn't noticed. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into a The Devil in popular culture page. Yes Lucifer and Satan have differing ancient or classical origins but I think most pop (if not all) culture material really treats them all like Old Nick/Devil/Satan etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per the growing consensus. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as it is an encyclopedic topic for an article. — Reinyday, 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss merge possibilities on an appropriate talk page. DHowell (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with either Satan in popular culture (as Satan and Lucifer are synonymous in pop vernacular) or with Lucifer (if they can are distinquished), which is only 26kb. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and start a merge discussion. A thoughtful discussion on merging seems to make sense. There is interesting and useful content here and notching up the quality will serve everyone well. -- Banj e  b oi   14:16, 4 February 2009 (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.