Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubus in fiction (2nd nomination)
Appearance
AfDs for this article:
- Succubus in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Renomination. First AfD closed as "no consensus", largely based on procedural reasons. AfD is no longer swamped, the RfC has failed, and this article is still an unacceptable trivia collection, with no indication of independent works on the topic. Eyrian 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge selectively with the main article, and preserve the remaining items, either on the talk page or a subpage thereof. As far as I can see the only people who'd want to separate "succubus in fiction" from the article in chief on succubus are those folks who think that succubi are real. The appearances of succubi in works of fiction are easily referenced to the works themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reading the histories, you will notice that was attempted and reverted. --Eyrian 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't change that it still ought to be what ought to happen. Forking material and then nominating it for deletion is not a good way to solve editorial disputes. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- On the flip side, the article is way too large to be a "in popular culture" section at Succubus. Ergo, Delete, as it's nothing more than a collection of inane trivia. --Agamemnon2 15:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The last AfD was only a couple weeks ago. This seems premature. -Chunky Rice 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I said in the nomination, the previous AfD was mostly opposed by those that had no opposition to later renomination once things had died down. They have. --Eyrian 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I just think you'd have better luck with all of your deletions if you just slowed down a little. Right now it seems like you're really pushing. -Chunky Rice 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I had no intent to nominate any further articles for awhile. This one got back on the list because it's fundamentally the same nomination, just resurrected on procedural grounds. --Eyrian 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)