Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)
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
— User:Folken, 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)