Deletion of Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (3rd nomination)

Comment: Not notable, in contrast to the notable mythological being. Fails  and is pure gamecruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . Wikipedia is not the monster manual
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: Even if the usage of D&D monsters in other publisher's books, such as Paizo, could be considered independent (which I, personally, don't think they are, as they were being used under Wizard's Open Gaming License), they are still not actual ''coverage'' about the creature that would denote notability.  They are simply in-universe usages of the creature within the game.   Outside of game books, the only coverage this creature gets are a few brief mentions in "top ten" style fluff pieces, which are not sufficient to pass the .  Likewise, the dearth of coverage would indicate that this particular version of the creature is not notable enough to be mentioned on the Lamia|article on the mythological creature, so merging is not necessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)