Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equiceph

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.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equiceph

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

D&D stub for a fictional creature that as usual fails WP:GNG/NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ridiculously minor fictional creature. There is only a single, primary source being used here, and looking for additional sources pretty much turns up nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2020 (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.