- 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 except signature updates.
The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Banderlog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons creature. Minimal in-game coverage, no evidence of third party coverage, absolutely no significance. No reason it would need to be mentioned anywhere, as I see it. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom or Merge with D&D article. Not enough distinct notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possible hoax: there are no primary sources or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:44, 8 March 2008 (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.