Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choldrith

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 --JForget 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choldrith

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race. Has appeared in only one v3/v3.5 book, along with a couple from previous editions. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable. This is one of many such D&D articles that has spun-out of control. Jack Merridew 14:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect into Faerun. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe a brief mention on the Faerun. Web Warlock (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obscure monster should not be made into a redirect to the campaign setting in which it appears. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 17:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF as well, so there is no benefit from keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment once again i think you are using the term stock character incorrectly as you do not understand it or the article in question. by your definition everything in RPGs would be a stock character. please stop abusing its use and stick to the other reason for deltion that we can all agree upon, for example notability; which this article lacks heavily. shadzar-talk 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.