Talk:Demon

Shouldn't be a Redirect
The Shadow Queen article links to this as though demon were a species. Since we both have that demon and the one who appeared in Brawl, shouldn't we consider making an article about the topic? There are probably even more demons that I just don't know about. 20:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)
 * I agree. You could also mention Black Chest Demons. 20:43, 15 February 2009 (EST)
 * I changed it to a regular article.


 * Is demon even notable enough, as it is just a general term used to describe certain characters? Should we have an article for Fish or Magicians?  Seems better as a category.  The concept just really isn't well established. --  P.S. Or this page could serve as a disambig for different subjects referred to as "demon."
 * I agree with your second idea of a disambig, SoS. -- Shiancoe 21:18, 15 February 2009 (EST)
 * Red is also a demon. 23:20, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Delete Demon.
Is this really necessary? There's a category.

Proposer: Deadline: September 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Delete

 * 1) Per what I said above.
 * 2) My question: are there multiple things called "Demon" from the games? Then yes, we need a disambiguation page. But "demon" receiving a disambiguation page is like having "Plumber" receiving such a page. Disambiguation pages are supposed to help people search for the right name, not be a page that lumps all shared entities into one spot.
 * 3) There's maybe the Resident Demon and maybe the Black Chest Demon that are worth keeping if we were to trim it, but I really don't think those two alone are really worth keeping this.
 * 4) This is a page made for what someone has been called. Let's make a page on "Loser" and put Wario on it while this page exists.
 * 5) Per all (and we should do that ninelevendo)
 * 6) Per what there's at the bottom of the page. While a dsambig is for something that have the same title (or similar, that's why I included Mini-Mario in Mini Mario disambig), the entries in this page doesn't even share a single letter.
 * 7) Though I originally opposed (because of the small clarification at the top of the section) I see enough reason from others to move my vote over here. (Though I see no problem with "Loser" :P)
 * 8) Per all, as usual.

Keep

 * 1) So what? We have a category for Dogs and yet it has a page.
 * 2) Having a disambig and a category with same/similar names isn't the same thing. They have two seperate functions, and having one doesn't prevent from having the other. That said, most of the things on here are demons, but aren't named demon. That's the function of a category. There are a few that do have demon in the name, so keep those. Tl;dr: Trim entries, but don't delete.
 * 3) Per Vommack.
 * 4) Eh. Someone might get this only knowing one demon, only to find there are more. Helps a bit.

Comments
@Randombob-omb4761 that's because it's not a disambiguation.
 * That still doesn't prove anything, a disambiguation is a type of page.

Shadow Queen IS a demon. The other stated not. I agrre we should delete this


 * "This is a disambiguation page — a list of pages that otherwise might share the same title." These pages do not share the same titles at all: this kind of disambig page misuse happens all the time... Now, one can make a case for making a general "Demon" article, like Dog or Dragon to talk about demons like Red, Abigor and Akuman, which don't have specific species, and are just "generic" demons, but as it is, the disambig page approach is no good. - 19:12, 5 September 2014 (EDT)

See, now this is making enough sense. The original reason of "There's a category too" is why I opposed originally.

Thanks for your support! This may be the first voting (FA' UNFA' and proposals) that I've won!
 * I think you won the unfeaturing of Star Piece as well. :) 23:36, 6 September 2014 (EDT)

Also' Dragon and Dog are different. They are not disambiguations.
 * You should include more in your summary for your proposals, et cetera. As you can see, everyone else is supporting for a different reason than the existence of the category.
 * Yeah, the reason you're winning is that other voters have provided more convincing reasons the article should go. 23:36, 6 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Same goes to this as well. - 01:04, 7 September 2014 (EDT)