Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flail snail


 * 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 with List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Some have supported keeping a separate article, but with the article being as brief as it is, a merge does not seem unreasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Flail snail

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not assert notability. It is simply a minor publication list from primary sources without any actual real world information. TTN (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Gong   show  01:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Gong   show  01:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as not being independently notable, unless someone knows of a valid redirect/merge target. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Flail Snail has been cited independently as being an example of a bad monster/game design. But the current article would need to be rewritten to reflect that. Something I do not have the free time for. Web Warlock (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which sounds to me like it will have only received a trivial amount of coverage from a few sources, most of which would be unreliable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * no independent third party sources to indicate notability. delete or merge if there is a suitable target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, unless there is evidence of meaningful information from the Paizo and Necromancer sources, which might make it possible to expand and keep/restore the article. —Torchiest talkedits 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that both Paizo and Necromancer are primary sources for the creature and cannot be used to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Not notable enough to have its own page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Web Warlock. Multiple sources already are documented in the article, only one of which is primary, and the fact that it has been subject of ridicule within the gaming community makes up for the fact that it hasn't been seen in spin-off media like video games. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt any of those are reliable, or that the coverage is in-depth. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources listed that are not TSR/Official Dungeons and Dragons are merely primary source game guides themselves. If Flail snail is as our topic sentence indicates a "dungeons and dragons monster", then those sources are not about the actual subject of the article, they are about a different critter in a different game that is also called "flail snail". If the article is about "the fictional critter used in multiple game sources" then the Necromancer and Piazo sources are as primary non independent for that subject as TSR sources are for the specific D&D critter. In addition, the author of the Piazo material Colin McComb is long time former TSR employee, and not someone "independent". And the " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters or Delete, article fails WP:GNG per the complete lack of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per web warlock - I recall out-of-universe discussion along the same lines (flaw in game/monster design). Sadly I have just rid myself of alot of roleplaying material :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nooooooo! If not for the ridiculous costs of international shipping, I would have gladly taken it off your hands.  ;)  BOZ (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that I need to point out to such experienced editors that Webwarlock's an assertion that "sources exist" is not really worth a hill of beans without the presentation of sources to verify that they do in fact cover the subject in a significant manner and were actually produced by independent, reliable sources. And thus "per webwarlock X, because they made a claim that sources exist" are of even less value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same; also, web warlock didn't vote either... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * oops, I edited my comment above slightly. I think webwarlock has may not have yet actually !voted because he is looking to see if he can find the sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters seems reasonable here. Technical 13 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.