| Revision as of 16:35, 31 January 2009 editNickPenguin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,476 edits →Lucifer in popular culture← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:07, 7 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. –] ] ] 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}} | |||
| :{{la|Lucifer in popular culture}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Lucifer in popular culture}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Line 7: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Merge and redirect''' to ]. ] (]) 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | *'''Merge and redirect''' to ]. ] (]) 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. ''']''' (]) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' and this one shouldr eally have been done outside of AfD as a requested merge, its obvious enough. ''']''' (]) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Redirect''' to Satan in popular culture. |
*'''Redirect''' to Satan in popular culture. ] ] 05:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] (]) 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] (]) 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] (]) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] (]) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Merge and redirect''' to ]. There are still a handful of duplicate In popular culture article, hopefully these can get sorted out soon. --]]<sub>(])</sub> 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | *'''Merge and redirect''' to ]. There are still a handful of duplicate In popular culture article, hopefully these can get sorted out soon. --]]<sub>(])</sub> 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' as the subject has attracted and been covered or merge and redirect as cited above, but perhaps merge ''both'' the Lucifer and Satan in popular culture articles to one on ]? Also, it should be noted that we actually have separate articles on ] and ] and so a case could be made for having separate "in popular culture" articles as well. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 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. ] (]) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' The nomination obviously fails ] - 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. ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 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 It appears to me that you made a serious lapse from policy, and that you really owe the community an open acknowledgment of that. ] (]) 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. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' or '''merge''' per the ]. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 01:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Merge''' with either ] (as ''Satan'' and ''Lucifer'' are synonymous in pop vernacular) or with ] (if they can are distinquished), which is only 26kb. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 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. ] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 18:07, 7 February 2023
- 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 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Lucifer in popular culture
- Lucifer in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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. --NickPenguin(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 Nobody 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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. -- Banjeboi 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.