Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umber hulk

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]

Umber hulk

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Despite being a D&D original creature, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. All mentions of the creature are relatively minor or relegated to listicles. Sources are WP:PRIMARY otherwise. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 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]
Comment, "hey! leave these iconic/unique d&d monsters alone (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shambling mound and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gelatinous cube)!" "coola there are no independent significant sources", "but, but .... surely the School of Inconsequential Studies has covered it?" Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails WP:GNG, as the two secondary sources given are nothing more than passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters: The article does have secondary sources. Merging them can improve another article. What's the benefit of complete deletion? Daranios (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

′*Delete - The non-primary sources only appear to either be trivial mentions or game-guides. While searches bring up a number of mentions of the creature, none of the results are actual coverage that could be used to support any kind of encyclopedic content. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:16, 6 March 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.