Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)
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
— User:Folken, 10:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:PSTS (Wikipedia:Notability)