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 redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sign of Koth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm not particularly familiar with the Cthulhu Mythos, but since the Sign is mentioned only once in the two stories cited in the article, I'd venture to say it doesn't require a separate article. (Mind you, the automated Afd procedure got stuck part way through, and I had to complete it manually. So perhaps the Great Old Ones are displeased.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. I added it there, so there's no need to merge. As far as I'm aware, this isn't a major part of the mythology. Searching through Google doesn't reveal anything illuminating, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above, I'm pretty familiar with the Mythos and would be astonished if there were signficant independent coverage of this topic. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom. Amortias (T)(C) 11:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Part of a notable topic but not a notable topic. delete per WP:GNG Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. I am not familiar with the subject matter, but the arguments are pretty convincing and the subject does not appear to be notable on its own. BenLinus1214^talk 00:34, 13 April 2015 (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.