Deletion of Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)

Comment: and '''Redirect''' to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters or any other appropriate target (an outcome also discussed at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons/Archive_30#Consolidation_Proposal|D&D Wikiproject). As nominator said, all articles fail  in that there is not a single secondary independent source whatsoever. All the sources in the article are |primary, that is, they are either ''a)'' the D&D official books themselves (everything from TSR/ Wizards), ''b)'' commercially published fictional material (story, rules) specifically designed as supplements/extensions to the D&D game, thus sources of original fiction (and not of criticism/analysis) and are not "independent of the subject" (since they are commercially exploiting these fictional creatures with licencing agreement from copyright holders) ''c)'' official books from other role-playing games not related to D&D, that happen to publish their own views on the creatures, thus primary sources not dealing with the topic (the creatures ''in D&D''). The much debated ''Tome of Horrors'' from Necromancer Games joins the ''b)'' category, it is a campain add-on for official D&D books, it is primary content devoid of any out-of-universe comment/analysis and is completely dependent on commercial D&D products as indicated by its disclaimer (p.1): "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®". Those in favor of conservation either did not address the notability issue, or failed to provide anything besides more primary sources (whether more D&D extensions or seperate games), and a search in GBooks and GScholar gave no results. No notable subjects, unsuitable for stand-alone articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PSTS)

Comment: and renominate individually.  We've seen from other discussions of D&D creatures that some can pass  and some can't.  Nominating the entire group, which I do believe was done in good faith, isn't appropriate, as it will confuse the discussion for each individual article.  There's no rush to get this sorted out, so let's do it right
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Since when does a single third-party source establish otability, particularly if it provides information on every single fictional item? If anything, it signifies notability as a group, but not for each item, hence merge the stubs into a list (there appear to be several possible merge targets). &ndash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: and '''Redirect''' the resulting blank titles to the approprate monster lists. I looked at every article here. Not ''one'' has any independent, reliable, secondary sources - or, for that matter, any secondary sources ''at all''. TSR, WotC, Pazio, ''Dragon'' magazine,  the pubisher of Tomb of Horrors - these are are all primary sources. While primary sources are inded acceptable for the establishement of facts, they can ''not'' be used to establish notability. No notability of ''any'' sort is established here - and, in fact, it cannot. Only a very few of the most iconic D&D monsters - beholders, mind flayers, and the like - are notable enough to have sufficent secondary sources to pass . These creatures have little to no "presence" outside of the game itself; there are simply no |reliable, secondary sources that ''could'' be used to establish any form of notabiity. As a ''group'', they are notable enough for inclusion in the lists of monsters, but ''invidivually'', the are not, and cannot become, notable enough for stand-alone articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)