Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabolical signature

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. MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diabolical signature

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

This article has been around the English Wikipedia for some time, just lingering, without any references at all and it doesn’t really have a claim of why it is notable other than reference to a famous story of a person who made a pact with the devil. With this said, no sources I could find referenced a “diabolical signature.” Therefore, I would say this doesn’t meet WP:GNG and as it has been un-referenced for god knows how long (get the irony?) I doubt there’s much chance of it. Perhaps someone can search more corners of the web than myself to pick something up but scholar records, google etc. don’t pick anything up of note. As it stands, with no references, and non-that I could find which assert notability I move to AfD however, if some references are found that assert notability then I will be happy to rescind nomination.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete _{changed per users request here} to Deal with the Devil. From what I can tell, the information here is drawn almost entirely from a single source, which is this book. This is the only real source I could find discussing the term "diabolical signature" in the manner described in the article, and a lot of the content of this article is word-for-word copied from the text in the book. Any other mention of the term I can find are either super brief mentions, that don't go into detail at all, or are mirrors of this article. So, it does not have the amount of reliable sources needed to really exist as a separate article. However, as this article is talking entirely about making deals with demons, and the "Deal with the Devil" article covers a lot of the same material, a merge and redirect to that article seems like it would be a good option. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, that book is likely copying from the article, rather than the other way around. The article is little changed from 2003 when it was created, that book was published in 2012. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is the case, then you can consider my argument to be for Deletion, rather than Merging. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article is quite short, and it makes sense to include this information as a section in Deal with the Devil rather than as a stand-alone article. As far as sources go, (since if we are to merge it the information still needs to be sourced) page 115 of this book mentions the necessity of obtaining the Devil's signature for a spell to create untold wealth, but it doesn't go far in sourcing the sort of specifics in the article. Although they aren't cited in footnotes according to current Wikipedia standards, the article does cite to Arbatel de Magia Verum and The Lesser Key of Solomon (Solomon) for some of its claims (books that were written in Latin circa 1575-1700). From what I can tell, Solomon likely does support the assertions the article makes, though Arbatel de Magia Verum probably doesn't. I'd prefer to see more recent treatment of these old and difficult sources - these older sources don't quite meet the definition of primary sources, but I'd still prefer to see them treated as such for this article. That said, I think Solomon gives enough credibility to the contents of the article that there is content worth merging to Deal with the Devil, citing to Solomon. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: My name is Solomon and I was wtfing for a while until I read more into it. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Sorry to confuse you. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rather fringe topic from demonology, "the systematic study of demons or beliefs about demons". It used to be all the rage for religious thought, but how many reliable sources address such matters nowadays? And the article seems to be quoting the Lesser Key of Solomon, a 17th-century grimoire. Among other things, the grimoire names and describes 72 different demons. Most of them are not known from previous sources, and may have been created by the anonymous writer. I doubt this counts as a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this information is in the Lesser Key of Solomon article, it makes little sense to have a separate article. I may go to hell for this, but I think we should delete. Rogermx (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (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.