Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizard king (Dungeons & Dragons)


 * 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 Lizardfolk. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Lizard king (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lizardfolk Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lizardfolk, the creature for which this was originally described as a more potent form. bd2412  T 02:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lizardfolk per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lizardfolk. There are zero non-primary sources being used here, and nothing else out there that I can find that would rectify that.  It is essentially a non-notable variant of an already questionably notable D&D monster.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge It is not a stand alone article, merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Alex-h (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Lizardfolk. In any case, no sufficient reason to delete the content entirely. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2019 (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.