The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rot grub

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are no sources outside of a handful of primary sources discussing these creatures in any depth that would denote notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the consensus reached for Aerial servant. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only passing mentions, even in fan-oriented sources. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not demonstrate notability. Barca (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.