Talk:evil spirit

RFD discussion: June 2019–April 2020
I have self-nominated because I believe we should keep this. It was deleted as sop back in 2014. My reasons: a) it is a "thing"; b) very common expression; c) some lemmings exist; d) not straight SOP, since it is not a spirit that is evil (i.e. it is not analogous to evil person), but rather one that causes evil or is an embodiment of evil. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the previous RFD discussion? Canonicalization (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would delete: you can find people invoking "O kind spirits!" and suchlike too. Equinox ◑ 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would be inclined to delete as well. You can find malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit and so on Leasnam (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do not know how to go about finding prev discussion (it came up as an alert when I first created the page, but now I cannot find it.). Also, respectfully, I do not think evil spirit' is the same as kind spirit, 'malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit, which is precisely why I created it. Amongst Christians I know there is a belief that there is such as thing as an "evil spirit" - a specific type of entity that does work for Satan and is known by this name - as opposed to any old spirit that is simply wicked or prideful or whatever. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The current definition does not describe a specific Christian spirit: it just says any evil spirit basically. I think you need to change the entry before you use that argument (but please let this discussion finish first). Equinox ◑ 03:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * To take your points individually: (a) it is a "thing"; [well, so is a "brown leaf" but that's the specific type of sum-of-parts entry we list as what we want to avoid]; (b) very common expression; [so is "brown leaf"]; (c) some lemmings exist; [okay, please cite them]; (d) not straight SOP, since it is not a spirit that is evil (i.e. it is not analogous to evil person), but rather one that causes evil or is an embodiment of evil. [I think this is a misunderstanding: you can live in "evil times", and the times themselves are not evil, but just full of it. Words aren't always 100% direct.] Equinox ◑ 03:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually what I meant by saying _it is a "thing"_ (and putting the word thing in inverted commas) was to invoke that new meaning of this expression. Like when someone says, "Is medical grade tea a thing?" (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144171/the-idiom-be-a-thing) Yes, a brown leaf is a thing, but it is not a "thing". Anyhow, I fear I am muddying the waters here, so shall desist. In any case, I think among Christians the term "evil spirit" is directly synonymous with "demon", as opposed to other adj+noun (SoP) combos such as wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit which are not directly synonymous with "demon".
 * As for lemmings, I found these two: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evil-spirit, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/evil%20spirit - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Recreating a deleted entry like that is dishonest. Delete for the time being, and introduce a proper request for undeletion. Canonicalization (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The entry never failed a RFD--or so the records suggest--so I do not see anything dishonest. The 2014 deletion of evil spirit entry was a speedy deletion; in the present 2019 RFD, the author of the entry wanted to ensure that, if the entry is going to be deleted again, it will be via a process rather than with zero discussion. Collins has the term, so this is one WT:LEMMING, and it makes the entry at least worth discussing and examining rather than speedy deleting it. I see nothing dishonest or shady on Sonofcawdrey's part. There is no basis for deleting the entry on process grounds alone; the entry can only be deleted on substance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote that on the assumption that it was RFDed. If that's not the case, I apologise. Canonicalization (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted - TheDaveRoss  19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)