Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubi in fiction


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Succubi in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is just an exhaustive listing of everytime a succubus is mentioned in a work of fiction, with no analysis of the topic itself. The entire content is one large, mostly unsourced, triviafarm. While these statements may be appropriate in their own respective articles, clumping them all here is not. Cleaning out the inappropriate trivia to comply with WP:NOT (NOTDIR, IINFO) and WP:TRIVIA would render the article barren. Since there is so little to work with here in developing an encyclopedic article on the subject, and since the article has not been cleaned up or improved in the 5+ years since the last AfD, delete per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA.  Them From  Space  19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Succubus, no merge.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm undecided so far. There might actually be value in compiling a list of this nature and having a page about succubi in fiction, as such a list would probably be too long to include in the main succubi article. I do, however, agree that some of the listing of succubi in this article is a little tenuous at best. I'm going to look at this a little longer, but it might be better to rename this "list of succubi in fiction" and prune the list, providing better sourcing for what we have. (Although I do notice that at least everything in the article generally already has an article page to refer back to.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it hard to find detailed analysis of the demon in contemporary settings much less on modern fiction. Most of the richer sources of info mostly point to medieval lore. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It is our explicit policy that articles may start with a few facts and be built up from there. The topic is quite notable as it is easy to find entire books about it such as Our Ladies of Darkness: Feminine Daemonology in Male Gothic Fiction and Demon-Lovers and Their Victims in British Fiction.  We are not here to develop this article right now because AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't the topic, but the content. Everything from "literature" on down is inappropriate trivia of this nature, passing mentions of minor characters and the like. Cleaning that up would leave an introductory sentence without any content. An encyclopedic article on this topic might well be possible, but that article would include none of this material.  Them From  Space  19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Our policy is that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Warden (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of succubi in fiction and keep. I don't agree that this list is as hopeless as the nominator states.  The list is almost entirely bluelinks, and while I am not sufficiently conversant with the gaming world to evaluate that section quickly, most of the items under "literature" and "film" appear to belong, so even if the crufty entries are appropriately deleted, the list will be too long to go back into the succubus article.  The list appears valuable for navigating the topic, and I don't see how deleting it is going to improve the reader's understanding of how the succubus motif is used.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename and Keep per Arxiloxos. Its fairly common to have "XXX In Popular Culture" or other such articles and lists spin out of subjects like this.  It could certainly use some cleanup work in some parts, but its a valid split from the main Succubus article, and too long to simply remerge.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename and Keep per the above two rationales. Aside from the obvious differences over what policy on such lists actually means, the nominator has failed to articulate why this article could not be improved through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My strict belief is that if an article has no content of redeeming value, such as this, then it should be deleted. Even if there could be an encyclopedic article under the subject, if nothing under the current article belongs in the encyclopedic article, then remove the current schlock without prejudice to proper article in the future.  Hopefully this will be enshrined within policy someday, but until then thank God we have WP:IAR. This article has not been improved in the 5+ years since the last AfD, which ended with a "keep and lets hope it will be cleaned up someday" type consensus. That hasn't yet happened and there's little chance that it will in the next 5 years without some incentive, which I had hoped this AfD would provide. But no, we're just going to willfully ignore this cruftfest and let it linger on as an embarrassment and a legitimate reason why we're mocked as an encyclopedia. I was once optimistic about this project, but discussions like this show that the project may not ever be regarded as a serious encyclopedia because much of the community doesn't want it to be!  Them  From  Space  21:19, 21 August 2012 (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.