Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flumph
or failing that '''merge''' and redirect. That secondary sources are "listicles" does not mean that the do not count. As the quote shows, the flumph is more than just mentioned - though, granted, the treatment is not exactly long. What the secondary sources also say, including the one by David M. Ewalt|Ewalt, which is not a listicle, is that the flumph is considered quite special within the D&D game by the authors. If these together are not considered to fulfill , a merge is still preferable to complete deletion, because bringing this special case properly based on secondary sources out can improve an article like Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons
— User:Daranios, 22:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)