Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denzelian

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denzelian[edit]

[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)

Extremely non-notable fictional creature. Even among other non-notable D&D creatures, this one pretty much takes the cake, as searches bring up virtually nothing. Even its presence in official D&D material is limited to an extremely scant handful of sources. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game guide cruft, fails WP:GNG. Might have voted !keep if it were more closely related to Denzel Washington, which is what I thought this article was going to be about when it showed up in my watchlist. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Tagged it per A7. Jdcomix (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure Speedy Deletion applies in this case, it's not a real animal, but it's definitely non-notable in the extreme, as much as "Goblin #5" from a random JRPG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Based on what I've seen in recent debates, and having stayed away from them, this is as clear a case of deletion-worthy and badly missing WP:GNG as I have seen in the past two months. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the same random, non-notable cruft is going to be added there, then that's making a good argument to delete any and all lists of D&D creatures. From what I can tell, most people agree that there should only be creatures with actual notability there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly specific. Because we are not a game guide, and no independent sources, fails WP:GNG Rollidan (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2019 (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.