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 redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). Clear consensus that this does not belong in mainspace, at least in its current state. Not so much agreement on exactly what to do with it. Normal editorial processes can be used to redirect to a different target and/or mine the history for material to merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very long and extensive piece of WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. All references are PRIMARY PLOT summaries, plus a spattering of the usual "appeared in the following media". BEFORE fails to find a single source that discusses him outside a plot summary. Looking at Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) I think all of his fellow demon lords have been redirected there, so we can consider SOFTDELETE and redirect there. Since it is a very long piece article, an AfD is probably preferable to an outright redirect or PROD, so let's see if anyone can find some source to rescue this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and the article would need substantial re-writing to pass not being plot anyway. Maybe a mention of it could be in the mythological creatures article under a "use in popular culture" section or something at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable FANDOM-style gamecruft that fails WP:GNG. Referenced to primary sources - which does not indicate notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only non-primary source being used in the article is the "For Dummies" book, which, as a game-guide written by Wizards of the Coast employees, does not help establish notability. Searching for additional sources brings up a few scattered mentions (a handful of brief "Top Ten" style entries, announcements that he will appear in an upcoming D&D product, etc), but nothing in-depth. Adamant1 mentioned above that he could possibly be mentioned in the Orcus article, and looking there shows that this is already the case, so perhaps at most a Redirect to there can be created afterwards. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unneeded fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft - this is one of the few D&D subjects that really has leaked out into broader culture, even if the article poorly reflects that. The fact that a rewrite may be needed to reduce plot elements is an editing issue, not an AfD issue. BD2412 T 01:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also possibly merge to some higher-level article on D&D creatures. BD2412 T 03:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.