Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice lizard

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice lizard

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - one reference is to another (non-authoritative) Wikipedia page. The other is to a purported book that cannot be found via the listed ISBN number.--Rpclod (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable; content and sources listed are all "in universe", such as Fiend Folio, a "product published for successive editions of the fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge / Delete??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine; Rpclod appears to be confused about what is/is not being referenced. Jclemens has already responded to K.e.coffman. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on review. On the other hand, as the references appear to have created the subject, they are primary and not secondary. They do not support notability. However, I would support merge as above. (Also, the ISBN number could not previously be found, but now it can.)--Rpclod (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2017 (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.