Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oaken defender

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 --JForget 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oaken defender[edit]

Reason:non notable, orphaned, and unsourced. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, super minor Dungeons & Dragons monster that has received no third party (and little first party) coverage. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I like this; maybe someone needs to write-up a No Primary Source guideline. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (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.