Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibbering mouther

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 Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbering mouther

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. This is a monster unique to D&D, but a fairly minor one. While doing the usual searches do come up with a few hits, nearly all of them are D&D related products, and thus do not count as reliable third party sources, and the few that are not pretty much just list the creature's name without talking about it in any sort of depth. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Not enough material or important enough to be independent and have its own article. Chase (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. It got what's basically a trivial mention in this article, but the Google Books results are pretty useless. I thought there'd be more coverage of this, but I guess not. I agree that a merge is appropriate here, as it's a unique monster. If someone can locate offline coverage, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2016 (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.