Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demons Three

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 delete. Tone 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Three

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Pure plot summary & list of appearances. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 21 September 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} 04:30, 21 September 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} 04:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ludicrous cruft. --Lockley (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is excessive fancruft, badly sourced and with no actual reliable secondary coverage to be found anywhere. Most of it is written in an in-universe style. There's no obvious merge target, or any sourced content to preserve even if there was. Capricious deprods can be a form of disruption. Reyk _YO! 10:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and no particular importance requiring the retention of the information elsewhere. TTN (talk) 13:48, 22 September 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.