Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gelatinous cube
I know that  says that existence of sources trumps their use in the article, but I still think its useful to look at how sources are actually used here. If there are good sources that support notability, as some editors are claiming, then they should be used to back up non-trivial statements. But at least at this point, everything sourced in the article is trivial: publication history (which exists for every D&D monster), a note on amebas, fictional ecology, and a fairly unimpressive "reception" section that boils down to: some people like the monster. I don't think this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. If the sources offer anything more, it should at least be mentioned here, and preferable added to the article
— User:BenKuykendall, 05:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NEXIST (Wikipedia:Notability)