Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellect devourer

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 keep. Consensus is reasonably clear at this point. BD2412 T 01:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Intellect devourer

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Intellect devourer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The same situation as in my previous nom, so I'll just repeat the same rationale: Stubby article on a fictional, non-notable race. Reception, here called "media", gives two passing mentions from two listicles. This fails WP:GNG, should be at best redirected to whichever is the relevant list of D&D monsters (we have several - I assume User:BOZ can tell us which would be the best target?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete It is a minor monster that lacks significant coverage. I'm not confident it's even notable enough for a redirect, but have no prejudice towards a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons since it's mentioned in a few listicles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Will see what else I can find, but merging to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons wouldn't be the worst result. BOZ (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The two references given in section Reception are somewhat longer than just a list entry, I think WP:GNG is met, albeit only just. --Cyfal (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons - The majority of the sources are trivial coverage, and even the sources being used for the "Reception" are just listicles with fairly minimal commentary. Searches are not turning up much better in terms of actual significant coverage, but there is probably enough minor coverage for it to be worth mentioning on the main D&D monster article. Rorshacma (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This Mein MMO article and The Monsters Know What They're Doing both have a bit of commentary aside from plot summary. Neither entry is a passing mention. Daranios (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  The MMMO entry is rather short, and seems to be a much watered down version of what is in the book you found. Which is interesting - it seems like a SIGCOV-meeting, semi-serious, analysis of how to use / deal / describe this entity in the games. I'd say it is reliable, and SIGCOV, as it goes beyond plot summary through speculation/etc. Non-scholarly analysis, I guess. Nice find. @BOZ - this seems like a solid source to improve many D&D monster articles, in case you missed it until now - good to add to your collection! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  I shall have to take a look at some point! BOZ (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep We have an article which conforms to WP:ALLPLOT with a reception section, which is short, but beyond stub length. So WP:WHYN is fulfilled, no need for deletion. The additional sources can be used to further improve and expand on a small scale. If a merge is deemed necessary after all, I think List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) would be the best target, containing the first appearance and one piece of commentary already, which could be expanded by what's here. But I think it is preferable to have this stand on its own rather than burden that parent article. Daranios (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above and sources provided by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). The content here is so little I see no reason why it can't be covered in another article per Wikipedia:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• While the "good" sources (mainstream popular press) tend to lack depth, there are plenty of in-depth, independent sources. It clearly meets WP:N, so keep. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like a divide between editors arguing to Merge and those advocating Keep. User:Piotrus, I'm not sure of your position now, you nominated this article for Deletion but then you advocate, at the least, a Merge based on a new source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I am always supportive of ATD, such as merger. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Daranios and Boz above, and per the weak nomination: I'm not comfortable with the copypaste of this nomination from the other one by the same editor.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76).Halbared (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
• Some additional sources.
  • is solely on this topic and covers it over 5 editions.
  • Pages 344-347 are on this topic.
  • Just to be high brow, by MIT press, has a brief mention.
  • Page 69 of is solely about this creature as it appears in a movie (4 paragraphs, looks like more than 200 words and a picture).

The first two, by themselves, meet WP:N. Given all the other sources (here and in the article), this isn't close folks. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep GNG is met per Daranios' and Hobit's sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons I agree that many of the sources listed are trivial but I do think that it is notable enough for inclusion, a lot of the information just needs to be merged. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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.