Deletion of Dungeons & Dragons creatures

Comment: Widely known or not, there still is a definite lack of reputable sources for these articles. Coming from the instruction manual and an affiliated magazine series does not strike me as very neutral and wide selection of sources. It'd be like only using Fox-based sources for Bill O'Reilly. If the closing admin reads closely, they see a lot of the keep's above are merely |saying they like it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: References sections list several independent sources (magazines, websites, etc.) from different authors and publishing companies.  Definitely no violation of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: I think you're in danger of missing the forest for the trees.  From , "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred."  I doubt you would dispute that each of the topics you've listed receives extensive coverage, and that's just IN the related material.  As the user above mentioned, there are non-WotC or TSR publications involved also.  Further, there is a large body of precedent for the individual aspects of largely notable works (e.g., the "Halo universe") receiving articles to discuss the details thereof. As I said above, there's no violation of the notability guideline here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: While I agree in principle, that these creatures probably do not merit their own articles, per the guideline at , I believe that they should be nominated separately so that we can consider them on a case by case basis.  There's nothing inherent about this subject matter that merits grouping them together as such
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: articles for now; '''Chastise''' nom for attempting a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stunky|PokeDeletion in re D&D.  I suspect that the nom |has an unused grindstone sitting around and a dull axe to grind, and is deciding to whet it on D&D articles.  Submit the articles individually, and do NOT use Ratman as precedent
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: By my count there are 9 keeps, 1 close (keep?), 1 merge, and a whole bunch of rebutting by the nominator. In that light, I'd like to politely suggest that it looks like |snow. In other words, the D&D folks are ''never'' going to to see eye-to-eye with Eyrian over this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: I keep hearing replies that this nomination is misguided, that there are independent sources, etc. Well: ''where are they''? Why should this article get a pass on having no independent importance when so many others do not? Why is proof by assertion sufficient here? As for , how am I gaming the system or acting in bad faith? I genuinely believe that these articles do not meet notability, as they have no independent sources. Concerning the decision to list several, there are about 200 entries in the D&D monster category. They should mostly be deleted. People complain if many articles are listed at once. These articles are all basically the same, and should be treated the same
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Nom's talk page is suggesting he's trying to alter  to suit his aims in this AfD.-Text redacted by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)