Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil in the arts and popular culture

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Devil in the arts and popular culture}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Devil in the arts and popular culture}})

It's questionable as to whether we need such an article at all, but even if we do, I'd suggest WP:STARTOVER. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I don’t see a problem here. Why should the article be deleted? ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Popular culture. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. "Questionable" isn't a deletion rationale and the article quality is not low enough for WP:TNT. Astaire (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Spirituality, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Stubify and rename. The nomination is bad and hardly explains the reasons this article is bad, but it is bad. Outside the first few sentences of lead, which have academic refs and establish WP:GNG (the topic is obviously notable, incidentally, I just wrote yesterday an article about a book whose introduction is another relevant source if someone wants to work on this) the article is a mess that IMHO fails WP:IPC/WP:TRIVIA/WP:NOTTVTROPES (i.e. the usual random list of works featuring devil), and at the end has a bizarre 'legal' section discussing some mentions of devil and stanism in court. My recommendation is to gut it down to a stub and rename by removing the pointless "the arts" (the arts are part of popculture anway). Ping folks who do good rewrites of this topic: User:TompaDompa, User:Uncle G... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• This did catch my eye when it was listed. Alas, I currently have almost all of the counties in Indiana open in browser tabs; and am in the middle of several sources dealing with Chilton County, Alabama. I tried to escape the never ending geography a while back, but that soon led to Kierkegaard, which can drain anyone's religious subjects fuel reserves for quite a while. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• I turned it into a stub, as suggested. That should be much more conducive to turning this into a decent article than the previous state it was in was. I daresay I won't find the time to get it up to standards myself anytime soon, however. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination does not seem sensible to me. The article isn't very good but certainly depictions of the devil in culture is a notable topic.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Either sent this to WP:COPYEDITORS or other similiar projects. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as being obviously notable and not being explosion-worthy. As noted above, AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep : the subject is very notable. Gauravs 51 (talk)
• Keep. There might be some room for rename but that can be discussed elsewhere. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Obviously the article needs a lot of work but the subject is very notable. I can think of several depictions of the devil in literature, music and art. If a lesser demon such as Mephistopheles has its own page on art and culture influence, why shouldn't the devil have one as well? It certainly isn't for a lack of material. Also as the previous users have mentioned, the article itself doesn't break any of Wikipedia's rules NeoGaze (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, but probably rename (no strong opinions on what the new title should be). WP:Notability does not seem to be seriously disputed here, and I would think most of the major issues that existed when the article was nominated have been resolved by reducing it to a stub. I can see an argument that what remains could equally well be covered at the main Devil article; if the article is not significantly expanded in the near future (I do not anticipate finding the time to do so myself), a merge discussion might be in order. TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.