Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo creature

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foo creature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article fails WP:GNG, as it cites no non-primary sources. A google search finds no non-primary sources discussing the creature, just the usual mix of fan wikis, forums and other non-RS. It also fails WP:PLOTONLY, as it provides no real-life context other than the publication history. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, non-notable monstercruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:GAMEGUIDE and this has no notability outside of the game guide. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DnD cruft, hopefully this year we can de-MonsterManual Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:FANCRUFT Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There do not appear to be any reliable, secondary sources regarding these creatures, so it fails the WP:GNG. These depictions of the creature are too minor and unnotable to be useful as a redirect to Chinese guardian lions, which is what they were based on. Rorshacma (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (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.