Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wormspawn

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. Deleting per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wormspawn (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)

Article fails WP:JUSTPLOT, as it includes no real-world context, and WP:GNG, as it doesn't seem to be discussed in non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a monster manual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Minor fictional creature with no reliable, secondary sources that discuss it in any depth. Complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -per WP:GAMEGUIDE. No notability outside of D&D and this is not the monster manual. Just a thought - could we wait until a couple of these are confirmed and the speedy delete the rest? Once we establish that these articles are non notable, WP:SNOW presumably applies. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dozens of these have already been deleted over the past year, and yet even PRODs are still contested for them. So, as much time as it would save, I honestly doubt that idea would pan out. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks. sigh. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and no particular reason to retain this info. TTN (talk) 12:07, 29 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.