Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hound of ill omen

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 merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. So Why 14:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hound of ill omen[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Google Scholar throws up a passing mention, but it's in Dragon, so not independent. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable; there's nothing to merge as the content and the sources are all "in universe", such as Fiend Folio, a "product published for successive editions of the fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how my opinion is not policy based? "In universe" sources are game accessories, as I understand it. I may be wrong, but these look to me to be companion pieces to the game, and are thus not sources to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. This is identical to the two previous listed articles, and belongs on the same list that BOZ provided. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per K.e.coffman. Nothing to merge. - TheMagnificentist 10:58, 13 July 2017 (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.