Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thought eater


 * 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 keep. Closing a few hours early, so consider this a "speedyish close". It's obvious that at thing point, there's not a snowball chance in hell that the consensus is going to change. If you think this is an innapropriate closure, contact me on my talk page. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thought eater

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the arguments below, or failing that merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Made Geek.com's "The most underrated monsters of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" here, as well as a separate article calling it worthless . It also appears to be covered in the Paizo-published (non-WotC, non-TSR) Pathfinder Bestiary, perhaps in multiple editions, based on this, but searching within the book is not available online, and I cannot confirm it. It does appear in the SRD, however, so this is entirely plausible: . For a weird little monster, that appears to actually meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. It's great to see a minor monster that actually seems to be notable; maybe we could all chip in and try to expand this article a little. I think DYK would be a definite possibility if any of us have easy access to the sourcebooks;, do you have them? Mine are on another continent and I never picked up the psionics books anyway... Josh Milburn (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I had many on PDF, but not on my current hard drive. :( Thanks for asking, though. I do have a few available in hardcopy, like the original "Monster Manual", so I may dig that one out this week and add a few details. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, per BOZ. This one arguably has some notability. GentlemanGhost   (converse)  20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. I would like to see it as a separate nice article, but it needs some flesh on the bones still. Topic is noteable. Polentarion Talk 19:22, 14 September 2016 (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.