Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sitri


 * 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   merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon. No consensus to delete, but no compelling case for a separate article. The merge close seems to be the strongest reading of the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sitri

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge - I've been meaning to get around to it, but I'm a terrible procrastinator. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "and makes them to show themselves naked if it is desired." - passes WP:NICEONEDAVE easily. Oh alright, merge to a single list or delete as necessary. Someoneanother 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The present situation in which articles are found for all 72 servants of Satan necessitates disposition as a combination. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite understand your note, you appear to be saying that individual articles are not required and would prefer a combined page but by also saying "Keep" this is the opposite viewpoint.—Ash (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Annette46 (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge same rationale as I gave for the rest of these goetic demons. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. If there is anybody resisting merges of these valueless stubs, please stop. Consensus in the last umpteen AFDs is that they must be merged. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (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.