Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (3rd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. The previous AfDs seemed to hinge on the usage of D&D inspiration in other similar games, but that rationale seems lacking. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if the usage of D&D monsters in other publisher's books, such as Paizo, could be considered independent (which I, personally, don't think they are, as they were being used under Wizard's Open Gaming License), they are still not actual coverage about the creature that would denote notability. They are simply in-universe usages of the creature within the game.   Outside of game books, the only coverage this creature gets are a few brief mentions in "top ten" style fluff pieces, which are not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG.  Likewise, the dearth of coverage would indicate that this particular version of the creature is not notable enough to be mentioned on the article on the mythological creature, so merging is not necessary.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or, failing that, merge and redirect: The Monsters Know What They're Doing has four pages on the lamia, including - aside from the game-use analysis that book always provides - quite a bit about creative origin and typisation. There is the extensive ENworld article cited in the article, and it seems Rorshacma found a few minor mentions. Of Dice and Men also mentions it in a humorous context, but only quotes the description from a primary source. So there are secondary sources. If these are not deemed enough for keeping its own article, it should be merged and redirected e.g. to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters or the lamia article, because loosing the information present has no benefits, while those articles are lacking that information. Daranios (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That ENworld source is not an article - its a forum post, and not a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, in contrast to the notable mythological being. Fails WP:GNG and is pure gamecruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. DnDcruft. No need for any redirect, a link from a disambig will be enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:19, 21 February 2020 (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.