Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flauros

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 Lesser Key of Solomon. NW (Talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Flauros

Flauros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria as a fictional character; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this character than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every fictionalreligious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, looks like copyvio to me. See Monsterpedia, but I suspect there might be an older source both are drawing from. Abductive (reasoning) 07:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Calling a demon named in a grimoire a "fictional character" is simple disparagement of a belief system, and manifests bias. The S. L. MacGregor Mathers 1905 translation of the Lesser Key of Solomon is public domain in the USA, and we're free to lift text from it. There might well be better ways to handle the named and listed demons from the Lesser Key of Solomon - some kind of table would be nice - but the stated grounds for this nomination are simply wrong, and invite pot-shots from village atheists, scientistics, and positivists at all unpopular mythologies. That would be a very bad precedent to set. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (Rephrasing nomination) I have struck the word "fictional" from the nomination as per your objection. This does not invalidate the nomination or contradict any other comments made in this discussion.—Ash (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lesser Key of Solomon as per my reasoning on Sere. Flauros is not notable other than within the context of this Grimoire. End pot-shot from village atheist. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete We need independent sources in order to determine what encyclopedic coverage of a topic should look like. Without them, it should look like a redirect. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - for what it's worth, Google Books contains plenty of sources that mention Flauros in ways that would appear to collaborate the article in question. It's true that most of the relevant entries probably do owe a substantial debt to the Lesser Key of Solomon; that doesn't make this demon any less notable; most mentions of Achilles owe something to The Iliad as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Checking the first 10 of books on the list at Google Books, they only seem to mention Flauros as being on the list. There appears to be nothing in these sources to justify having a content fork. The notability of Achilles is a strange and possibly ridiculous comparison as, using exactly the same test, more than half of the first 10 matches on Google Books are solely about Achilles.—Ash (talk) 20:07, 17 October 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.