Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stench kow

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 merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stench kow

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

This article fails to establish notability. While it would be fine with multiple other sources, the Escapist is not enough on its own. TTN (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as The Escapist inclusion is an indicator of notability, or failing that merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. I agree with TTN that the Escapist source is not enough to justify this having a separate article, especially when the source provides rather limited information on the subject as part of a list. Aoba47 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. A single humor article from a third party source is not nearly enough to establish notability. Especially given that if you actually look at the source in question, it is nothing but a two sentence "description" merely saying "this monster is dumb". Had this creature actually had other reliable sources that showed real notability, then sure, that article could have been included as a humorous aside. But, as the sole example of a third party source, it doesn't even come close to supporting an entire article. As not all of the standard information on the creature is currently present on the Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, a merge would be appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge. The Escapist mention is good, but not enough alone. I wouldn't lose sleep if this was kept, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, fancruft, insufficient coverage by multiple sources for standalone notability. Sandstein 13:47, 8 November 2016 (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.