Deletion of Lords of the Nine Hells

Comment: or redirect/merge if a suitable parent article is found. There should not be a separate article if quick third-party sources cannot be found (, ). A topic should be developed from third party sources, not from crufty extend of primary sources hoping for someone to add third-party sources later on (which likely won't ever happen). Better delete now and allow to recreate with proper sources, than leaving this mess (#PLOT) forever hanging around. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: per both our |notability and |verifiability requirements, if there are no third party sources discussing a topic then we should not have an article on it. I've done a bit of a search, and the best I could find outside of D&D's own publications was a passing mention on a gamer website. It is not enough to AGUEWAVE|wave your hands airily going "There'll be sources out there somewhere"; the |onus is on the defenders of such material to prove it. This is especially true when others have tried and failed to find the required sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:BURDEN)

Comment: Not a lot of coverage in third-party reliable sources that I could find (I found some one-off mentions in about 10 books and one in a RS news article, but all passing mentions).  That said, "d&d Asmodeus" pulls up over 100,000 hits, and other combinations of names from the article pulls up somewhat fewer hits (the first 50 all seems on-topic btw).  That said,  clearly applies.  But as I think removing this would make the encyclopedia weaker and there are plenty of RSes for this (just not substantial independent sources), I think IAR applies here. Plus I suspect there _is_ coverage (heck, I remember reading a book about the evils of D&D that discussed the hell mythology for a page or so some 20+ years ago
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GHITS)