Deletion of Cyclops (Dungeons & Dragons)

Comment: per Jclemens source discussion.  is met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The Pathfinder and "for dummies" sources are secondary, and thus the  is met.  If this were merged back into Cyclops proper, it would provide undue weight on elements not relevant to the mythological creature, but appropriate for its depiction in games.  If there were to be a merger or a change in focus, it might be more appropriate to treat this as an "in popular culture" article and incorporate game appearances from non-role-playing games
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: No independent, secondary, or relaible to even remotely establish that the DnD cyclops has some sort of particularly notability as an independent topic. A minimalist reference should (maybe?) be added to the main Cyclops article, but I question if that is even worthwhile, given that the cyclops has appeared in numerous different works and media pertaining to fantasy and mythology, and |Wikipedia is not the place to create an article about where every fictional creature or topic intersects with every game, comic book, movie, novel, or whathaveyou.  Further, pretty much every last word of content seems to be summary of material found in rulebooks for these games.  This is just not encyclopedic content in any reasonable sense.  I'm sure this can find a home on a wikia somewhere (indeed, I'd be surprised if it's not on a dozen), but for Wikipedia? Sorry, no.  Note also that the image in the infobox is pretty much without doubt a  that is not allowed under our policy exceptions, so someone should look at that as well.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:WWIN||WP:COPYVIO)