Talk:Belial in popular culture

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Edit-war

There's an edit-war over whether this should be an article or a redirect. I think you both have good points: AN is right that the AFD closed as keep (and not keep and clean-up) and ~~Dream Focus~~ Doctorfluffy is right that there has been no improvement in the referencing since the AFD closed (just more unreferenced entries). Who has the better argument? I don't know, but if I come back to this in 24 hours and find the edit-war is still going on, I'll either protect the article or block the both of you. WP:3O is that way.--chaser (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Doctorfluffy? I haven't done anything to this article. Not sure how you got me confused with a deletionist. Dream Focus 16:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, if one editor wants something done, and another disagrees, then you don't do it until you discuss it on the talk page, and form a consensus. Dream Focus 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving the redirect in place. A Nobody is undoing simply because it's me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it survived AfD, where's the discussion about whether to merge before the redirect/merge happened? That's why there's an "edit war", no?--Milowent (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The closing admin said to discuss on the article's talk page first if it should be merged, not act unilaterally without any discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Keep This is like many other articles. It shows how a notable character has survived over time, to be used in various notable works. It belongs in a side article, there enough content to fill it. Some formatting work is clearly in order. I'll get that started now. Dream Focus 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a suggestion, but looking at Belial's article, if both were reformatted and referenced they could be combined together into a larger, more concise article without loss of information. However it might be a heck of a task to do this effectively...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished organizing it better. I don't think we could copy it over to an article, which would then have most of its size a popular culture section, those usually declared fancruft or trivia, and eliminated. Dream Focus 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue to improve or merge per the above suggestion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any sources with which to reference the article? Or will it remain forever without footnotes?--chaser (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want them, add them. Most people don't care about that sort of thing. Just click on a blue link to the Wikipedia article for the book/game/manga/whatever and read about it there. Or from there click on a link to the official websites to read about it, or Google book search, etc. Unless someone sincerely doubts information is valid, you don't need a reference for it. Dream Focus 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you talking about? Simply ignoring referencing???? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing from Wikipedia is a terrible standard. The problem with the suggestion is well illustrated by Nosferatu (does not mention belial), a film from 1922 for which there is of course no website.--chaser (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Belial's appearance in Diablo III PC game in the Games section of the article. He is the Act II Boss, fairly hard to kill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.208.32 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]