Deletion of Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)

Comment: as the "Tome of Horrors" from Necromancer Games and the Pathfinder "Bestiary" series from Paizo Publishing are indeed independent sources, and thus I believe they constitute sufficient independent coverage to meet the . Failing that, a '''merge''' to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. As Jclemens points out, this article was previously redirected based on the presumption that one AFD can determine the fate of other articles, and this article was never at AFD previously
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: merge relevant content per Masem) Fails , the article doesn't have "significant content from multiple secondary independent sources". Sourcebooks like ''Tome of Horrors'' are affiliated to D&D ("this product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®") they provide original content for the game and don't contain analytic or evaluative claims. They ''are'' the game and thus primary sources and cannot grant notability. Other RPGs like ''Pathfinder'' are primary source on themselves, thus when they deal with a creature they are not independent from it, neither is what they to the article. Besides, if they are different games than D&D, they're not dealing with the D&D creature, but with they own version. As they do not provide any commentary on D&D version vs their own, they don't provide analytic or evaluative comment (and if they did, these wouldn't be editorially or financially independent comments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Even failing that, a merge to one of the creature list articles is preferable per , so the nomination lacks any policy-based rationale.  In fact, the previous edit summary attempting the redirect is itself misleadingly inaccurate: there has not been a previous AfD on this topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: not only is this not notable in the real world, it is not notable within the fictional game world. the sources are all primary sources discussing the critter only via "in world" game stat perspectives. there is for this article NO independent coverage. As has been presented at multiple other AfD's - the Paizo and Necromancer sources are neither truly "independent" nor actually discussing the topic of the article the: D&D Ant Lion. they are merely source books with game stats for pseudo-D&D game play and therefore their content is about pseudo-D&D ant lions for which |original research is required to make the claims
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)