Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thought eater (2nd nomination)

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. KaisaL (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought eater (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)

Reading the last AfD, the sources presented were extremely shoddy and entirely from listicles like "Underrated monsters" and "Dumbest monsters ever" as well as a WP:GAMEGUIDE bestiary. Not exactly an indicator of notability or relevance to a larger audience of non-fans and devotees. Fails WP:GNG as mere mentions are not enough to prove WP:SIGCOV. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. Cannot locate coverage in independent RS. In previous AfD it was suggested to redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), but that list was deleted. A possible target is Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, but thought eater is not mentioned there and I suspect that list may be deleted soon enough anyway. buidhe 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As I have mentioned in other AFDs, I really don't consider the use of D&D creatures in Paizo-published works valid for establishing notability since their status as being "independent" is debatable (as they were being used under Wizard's Open Gaming License), and there is no actual coverage, just the use of the creatures in-universe in game books. Outside of gamebooks, the only secondary sources are brief mentions or "top ten" style lists that do not offer much information that could be used to build an article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DnD fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. PS. I did review the sources presented in prior AfD that they are little better than trivial fancruft (plot summaries/listicles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. There are secondary sources, which do a little evaluation of the monster. They can improve a target article like List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters which needs more secondary sources. So merging will improve Wikipedia a tiny bit, while deletion does not. And we are here to improve Wikipedia, are we not? Daranios (talk) 21:58, 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.