Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flumph

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. Sandstein 09:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flumph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG - only mentioned in listicle sources such as "Dumbest Monsters Ever" and "Weakest Monsters Ever" - lacks WP:SIGCOV and most sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient sources to prove how this meets the WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or failing that merge and redirect. That secondary sources are "listicles" does not mean that the do not count. As the quote shows, the flumph is more than just mentioned - though, granted, the treatment is not exactly long. What the secondary sources also say, including the one by Ewalt, which is not a listicle, is that the flumph is considered quite special within the D&D game by the authors. If these together are not considered to fulfill WP:GNG, a merge is still preferable to complete deletion, because bringing this special case properly based on secondary sources out can improve an article like Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Daranios (talk) 22:25, 29 February 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.