Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant strider

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

This article does not establish notability, and it relies only on primary sources. TTN (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless this can pass our fiction tresholds (coverage by mainstream sources), this should be deleted as a poor fork of [1]. That's what wikia and friends are for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, according to where consensus is tipping at the end. One thing is sure, with only primary sources the topic fails to establish independent notability per WP:GNG and cannot be kept as a stand-alone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Web Warlock (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no third party sources to establish independent notability. delete or merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. No real information to salvage other than publications, but that could be added from some of the primary sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. Deletion is not a policy-supported outcome per WP:ATD, since a merge target has been identified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs)

i will note that "keep" is not a policy supported outcome, since no policy has been identified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]