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 Devil (Dungeons & Dragons).  Sandstein  18:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zariel (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)

Non-notable fictional character. Searches for sources don't find anything to suggest that WP:GNG can be met. Suggest turning it back into a redirect, as it was when it was originally created. SmartSE (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I'll let D&D aficionados suggest an appropriate target. Nothing in the article indicates independent coverage or significance that would merit an encyclopedia article, and a search found nothing either. --Michig (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - or redirect per the nominator's suggestion. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest to those who want the article to become a redirect that it is more likely to stay being a redirect if it is deleted first, and then re-created. So long as there is content hidden in the revision history, someone might want to restore it to being an article - deletion would solve that problem. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO We don't delete content we don't like just to salt the earth. If there's problems with it being un-redirected, then the solution is to protect the redirect. Deletion and then redirection is appropriate for copyvio, attack pages or BLP violations, and promotional material... it's not the way to handle innocuously non-encyclopedic content. Remember, the material from our old revisions can be mined both for an improved article here, or a domain-specific fictional Wiki. Denying them that for no good reason is an insult to the contributors who provided the info--just because it's not suitable for a standalone article doesn't mean it's not appropriate and useful somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to shout, dude. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons), possible merge some content into a new Archdevil section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Torchiest. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge as per Torchiest, it would be a shame to lose the referenced content completely.Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then create a redirect. With all due respect to those who play the game, I don't see any referenced content currently in the article that's not trivial.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - Zariel is mostly a historical footnote in universe, not a current significant figure in the game, with not much (any, that I can find) in the way of independent notability. Some content can be preserved in Baator and/or Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) - Sangrolu (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone know if the original expansion (August 2011) came from elsewhere? It was contributed by 108.69.80.43, a prolific editor. I found a match for a few sentences against http://www.planewalker.com/encyclopedia/zariel (dated December 2006, archived as of December 2008). I skimmed Avernus (Dungeons & Dragons), Bel (Dungeons & Dragons), and Baator without finding anything. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Zariel?oldid=86061 doesn't seem related either. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing no responses, I tagged the article {{db-g12}}. Google returned matches for the History section also: http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Reckoning_of_Hell (Jan 30, 2009; Google result, but doesn't load) and http://marq.wikispaces.com/page/diff/Reckoning+of+Hell/25894113 (Jun 3, 2008; incompatible license CC-BY-NC 3.0). Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have declined speedy delete, as match was only to partial sentences, and instead I removed that section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removing the History section only addressed the "Reckoning of Hell" sources. Compare the Duplication Detector report before the removal (9 matching phrases minus 3 minor) to the report after the removal (7 matching phrases minus 3 minor). I identified sources for roughly half of the prose, and there is no reason to believe that the remainder has not also been copied. On a side note, the contemporary D&D system may be freely licensed under the Open Game License or the System Reference Document, but Zariel is a named archdevil that probably falls under copyrighted Product Identity. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• We usually merge such minor characters. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (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.