Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lammasu (Dungeons & Dragons)

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 List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). Sandstein 08:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lammasu (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it had some coverage in White Dwarf or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BOZ BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boz. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Merge. I would be shocked to find any meaningful Notability independent of an in-universe context. Alsee (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking a little broader than the above Find Sources template gives [1] and [2] which appear to be independent RS mentions. I'm not surprised, because this is a preexisting mythological creature, and as such has existed since early in D&D's lifecycle, and as a non-copyrightable element has made it into similar games and places not owned by TSR/Wizards. Note that White Dwarf, already in the article, is already an independent RS. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those may be reliable sources, but how exactly do they do anything for this topic? It's literally just one word per source. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." TTN (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Like previous times I've found such content in topics you've nominated, I contend that the presence of fictional elements in similar or derivative games constitutes sufficient real-world impact to convey notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the target recommened by BOZ, with a cross link to the mythological lammasu.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ and Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 September 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.