Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leucrotta (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Leucrotta (Dungeons & Dragons)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leucrotta_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Leucrotta (Dungeons & Dragons)}})

The topic of this article fails WP:GNG, as the article cites only one non-primary source, and multiple sources are generally needed to establish notability. The sources mentioned in the previous AfD mostly discuss the real-world mythological creature with the same name, rather than the D&D monster. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - The prior AFD was kept on some very bizarre rationale, such as the spelling of the creature in D&D somehow made it more notable. Or, worse yet, the fact that some scholarly books on the actual mythological creature were published after the D&D creature was created must mean that they were "influenced" by D&D. A claim that is completely false, and has absolutely no sources indicating otherwise. The truth of the matter is that D&D did not create this monster, nor even this particular spelling of the creature. It was just one of the hundreds of D&D monsters that were adaptations of pre-existing pieces of folklore. All of the sources brought forth in the old AFD were on the mythological creature, and do not mention D&D at all. I don't know if "geek.com", the only current secondary source, is considered to be a reliable source, but even if it is, the coverage of the monster is a trivial "top ten" style list. All further sources that are actually valid reliable, secondary sources are discussing the mythological version, not the D&D version. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not the monster manual and this has no notability beyond being part of the D&D game guide. The previous AfD is odd, the arguments are wrong. This article does not meet WP:GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE; fails the GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOTGUIDE WP:GNG Bobherry Talk Edits 23:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.