Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boalisk

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. I have redirected to Dungeons & Dragons, as that is the only article that I am sure is appropriate to redirect to. Feel free to redirect to a better article, and merge relevant and verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boalisk

Boalisk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Dungeons & Dragons monster of questionable notability. First appearance was in a module, the second was a reprint in a supplement that just lists monsters. No evidence of third party coverage. A merge to the module may be appropriate, but that depends on how prevalent the monsters are within the supplement. Probably, a mention in the module article or an outright delete is a better option. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Give 'em to Frank Sloth. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 09:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Close and propose a merge or a redirect at the article talk page. no need to bring this here.DGG (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge a brief mention into the module article. There's already a paragraph about the monsters introduced, it just needs a mention of the name and the six word summary of the monster's concept ("crossbreed of a boa and a basilisk") to be all that Wikipedia needs on this thing. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth (I'm assuming) per Ig8887. BOZ (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable, mention in the module listed above. shadzar-talk 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e. a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Zero benefit to Wikipedia to lose the article; possible gain by keeping it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no secondary sources. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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.