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 --JForget 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrum Worm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable monster from the Dungeons & Dragons world, appearing in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no secondary coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. This is one of many such D&D articles that has spun-out of control. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (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.